Oh Joy it must be time near election time again

[OneEyedPimp]

A person's ability to do something should be limited to more than "As long as it doesn't affect anyone else".

That attitude is why I don't like having to pay insurance for drivers who are complete idiots. That's why I don't like having to pay health insurance to subsidize heavy smokers who do not exercise or eat a healthy diet.

Actuarial Scientists are smart people.

Actions affect everyone.

You may notice, that I have NO problem with the private sector. I only have a problem with laws preventing the heavy smokers from doing just what his name implies. If you dont like the rates, don't pay them and just pay for when you go to the doctor out of your own pocket. Pretty simple.

[nippinout]

That's a chain smoking 11 year old that got pregnant on a night of drinking. link

Your logic is flawed.

Sheesh, why don't we change the minimum age requirements for elected office! Cotton candy and video games for every man, woman, and child is my Presidential campaign promise.

"VOTE NIP IN '08!"
"WHEN IN DOUBT, PULL IT OUT!"
"SCHOOL SUCKS, JUST LIKE MY OPPONENT!"

[nippinout]

You may notice, that I have NO problem with the private sector. I only have a problem with laws preventing the heavy smokers from doing just what his name implies. If you dont like the rates, don't pay them and just pay for when you go to the doctor out of your own pocket. Pretty simple.

Insurance isn't there because I like to give the insurance companies lots of money.

I pay them because it allows me to pay for small stuff, but when I need to have brain surgery, I know that I won't have to throw the church bake sale to end all bake sales. You lack real world experience, and it shows.

I'm not trying to say that it's the government's job to be your boss/mom. But it's there because there are a lot of idiots that make idiotic decisions solely because of their age and immaturity.

[OneEyedPimp]

Insurance isn't there because I like to give the insurance companies lots of money.

I pay them because it allows me to pay for small stuff, but when I need to have brain surgery, I know that I won't have to throw the church bake sale to end all bake sales. You lack real world experience, and it shows.

I'm not trying to say that it's the government's job to be your boss/mom. But it's there because there are a lot of idiots that make idiotic decisions solely because of their age and immaturity.

On the contrary, you are making the government just that, our nanny. You just need to stop worrying about others. If you dont want your kids to smoke, teach them not to, but dont make laws saying that someone elses can't[.]

[OneEyedPimp]

[IMG][/IMG]

That's a chain smoking 11 year old that got pregnant on a night of drinking. link

Your logic is flawed.

Sheesh, why don't we change the minimum age requirements for elected office! Cotton candy and video games for every man, woman, and child is my Presidential campaign promise.

"VOTE NIP IN '08!"
"WHEN IN DOUBT, PULL IT OUT!"
"SCHOOL SUCKS, JUST LIKE MY OPPONENT!"

While I do feel sorry for that girl, it is not my, yours, or any one elses fault but her own, she made the decision. Not my problem. To imply that by giving her the option to do it is somehow my fault is also flawed. She did all this and it WAS illegal. Guess that negates the law.

[nippinout]

On the contrary, you are making the government just that, our nanny. You just need to stop worrying about others. If you dont want your kids to smoke, teach them not to, but dont make laws saying that someone elses can't[.]

Keeping 6 year olds away from porn and 15 year olds from having a blood alcohol content and driving at 4am is not the goverment being your nanny.

While I do feel sorry for that girl, it is not my, yours, or any one elses fault but her own, she made the decision. Not my problem. To imply that by giving her the option to do it is somehow my fault is also flawed. She did all this and it WAS illegal. Guess that negates the law.

You make no sense. Because she broke a law, the law is negated? I am not following you on that one.

I cannot find my factoids now (I can find them, I just don't want to dig them out of my crypt of old notes and texts) but a driver that ends up killing himself in an accident causes the rest of us a loss of about $3,000,000. That driver affects my wallet. That 11 year old girl affects my wallet.

[OneEyedPimp]

Keeping 6 year olds away from porn and 15 year olds from having a blood alcohol content and driving at 4am is not the goverment being your nanny.

Is so, as the definition of a nanny is a child's nurse.

You make no sense. Because she broke a law, the law is negated? I am not following you on that one.

I am sorry, what I meant was that she went ahead and smoked and got pregnant, despite the law being there. We pour money into stopping this and it goes and happens, granted that this is just one incidence. The old saying goes, "Kids will be Kids," even if being kids involves chain smoking, drinking, and getting pregnant, they will do it despite what barriers we put up to block them.

I cannot find my factoids now (I can find them, I just don't want to dig them out of my crypt of old notes and texts) but a driver that ends up killing himself in an accident causes the rest of us a loss of about $3,000,000. That driver affects my wallet. That 11 year old girl affects my wallet.

Don't worry, I know what facts you are talking about and the solution is pretty clear, just don't pay for it. If you want the dead drunk driver to pay for his fines, simply seize all of his property despite his will, therefore it should pay a good chunk of the bill, granted not all of it, but no system is perfect. If you don't want to pay for the girl, don't. Revoke welfare and social security. If she is under the same insurance program as you, you may have to pay for her, but then again insurance is just a commodity for if you need that brain surgery.

[Lohman446]

Here is a question: what makes someone under 18 somehow sub-human to someone above that age? It is morally right to let sub-18 year olds to be just as human as post-18 year olds, as such they get punished in the same sense when they do wrong as someone over 18. Seriously: people need to stop worrying about what other people might do and more about what they do.

Let me guess, your not 18. Because most adults remember how stupid we were when we were 18/19/20/21/22/23... Personally I am still waiting for the adult "smarts" to kick in here but thats another story. To protect those under 18 we do not consider you adults. This gives you time to learn. Also think of the credit card companies and other less than helpful soles that would let you enter into legally binding contracts with the general short sightedness of youth that would cost you severely as you got older. We also protect those under 18 from all but the most serious of laws that govern your actions. Theres a cost to these benefits that protects the safety of many. Its there for a reason, for many many reasons, lets not deny that.

[sbpyro]

Personally I am still waiting for the adult "smarts" to kick in here but thats another story.

Trust me that will never happen I'm bout to hit 30 and the adult "smarts" are still not there
I had no problems with him enforcing the laws about the sale of the markers to a minor.
My problem is he waited until now to start cracking down. By the way it is the liberals that want to diaarm America. This is Massachusetts we only have a handful of Republicans here. The problem I have with this was Kmart, Walmart, Dicks sporting goods, and sports authority have been selling bbguns, and paintball markers that are used in a majority of the vandalism did not get busted earlier. I do not wish to lose my equipment because some punk buys a marker from one of those stores and vandalizes my neighborhood and someone has seen that I have a paintball marker or 2. It is not like there is a way to trace a paintball back to the marker that fired it. I would also like to add it was very irresponsible for the paintball store that did get busted to sell to someone that age without a parent there.

[Arstron]

MA Code Chapter 269: Chapter 12a: Air rifles; sale to minors




Chapter 269 Section 12b: Air rifles; possession by minors; shooting



I was unable to find when the law was enacted, but one can reasonably assume it wasn't put on the books yesterday. Its legal backing comes along the same lines as that of such laws as those which restrict the age to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, spray paint, etc.

So according to both the laws you just posted a minor can shoot a BB gun and a minor can purchase a BB gun. That is fine, so how did a minor purchase those BB guns online? With a credit card that could not be his own? He would have either stole the credit card or his parents made the purchase for him. You should go after the pron sites also saying its their fault he stole/his parents paid for their minor to view there sites. Your logic is flawed, using a credit card online is an age verification tool.

[shartley]

[Arstron]

I did not know that somone under the age of 18 could get a debit card. That does ruin everything I said, oh well just thought I would help.

[shartley]

I did not know that somone under the age of 18 could get a debit card. That does ruin everything I said, oh well just thought I would help.

No worries.

[PumpPlayer]

Wow, we're sure breeding some well-developed 11-year-olds nowadays.
I can't remember any of the girls looking that physically mature when I was in 4th and 5th grade.

I remember being a teenager and I remember hating the age laws. In fact, I still do hate some of them. The drinking age is pure BS propagated by extremist neo-prohibition groups and permitted by the general public because most people don't drink. FWIW, I've been over 21 for quite some time now and I value that right very much. I still think there's a better solution than we have, especially in light of the problems caused by drinking in our youth. I think that a drinking age of 21 is part of the reason we have alcohol problems with our youth and that it serves to encourage a culture of control, against which the young will always rebel.



I don't think OneEyedPimp particularly knows exactly what he's for or against. I say that not to sound insulting but to open up a line of logic with the goal of showing why we set seemingly arbitrary ages to perform certain actions legally.

OEP is againt age laws because he feels that age is no reliable indication of maturity. I agree that age and maturity bear verey little correlation but the fact remains that we must still set some cutoff point. Using suffrance as an example, it's readily apparent that there are certain factors which are required before one can vote. Citizenship, of course, and I doubt anyone would argue with that requirement. Gender and race have been purged from the system as well as ownership of land. Another requirement is, supposedly, the ability to make a conscious, fully-informed decision. You can argue all you want as to when a human being gains that ability but the age of 18 isn't that bad of a benchmark. Another reason for the age is life expectancy and child mortality. It's not so much of an issue anymore, but 150 years ago when cholera, measles and various other maladies claimed roughly 1 in 3 children, it was a very big deal. The last has to do with self-sufficiency and social responsibility. Children dependant upon their parents have very little social responsibility. They don't pay taxes and, until their teenage years, can't even hold a job. Their sense of value in a leader is skewed because they don't have to pay for the cost of that leadership. There is a reason why the age of suffrance coicides with the age of taxation.


I said before that OEP is misguided in placing his criticism of the system. Like any young person, he is overwhelmed with rage when confronted with one simple phrase.

"Because I said so."

He sees age laws as being a state form of "because I said so". The perception is not unwarranted, but it is also not correct. I can go on and on regarding reasons for age laws, but others have summed it up quite well. Suffice to say that cognition and logic are the benchmarks and because there is no way to test for maturity, we must use age requirements as an approximation.



This goes both ways, of course. OEP claims that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception. I wonder if he knows the full reasoning and logic behind the argument, though. Is he saying that because he knows it in his heart to be true or is he simply repeating that which he has heard from another source (Parent, book, Church organization, etc.)? The young are always good for the dispensation of facts but logic generally does not accompany them.

I make no motion to call anyone unintelligent or even 'stupid', I simply challenge you to call your own bluff once in a while and examine your thoughts accordingly.


No one can accuse you of ignorance until you make a decision to stop learning. I advise you to never make that decision.

[OneEyedPimp]

Let me guess, your not 18. Because most adults remember how stupid we were when we were 18/19/20/21/22/23... Personally I am still waiting for the adult "smarts" to kick in here but thats another story. To protect those under 18 we do not consider you adults. This gives you time to learn. Also think of the credit card companies and other less than helpful soles that would let you enter into legally binding contracts with the general short sightedness of youth that would cost you severely as you got older. We also protect those under 18 from all but the most serious of laws that govern your actions. Theres a cost to these benefits that protects the safety of many. Its there for a reason, for many many reasons, lets not deny that.

Actually I am still 16. The problems that I have with age laws does not stem from my age, but rather my questioning the legality of them. Me, personally, when I get older I want my children to be able to make their own descisions without the government telling them no, despite if it is in "their best interests."

I dont expect many to agree with me, most don't. But age laws are a relatively recent development, so saying that they help is kindof backwards thinking in my opinion.

You may find my views radical, but they stem from my views on abortion. If you consider somone under 18 not an adult, you are putting them in a class that is sub-human by definition. By doing this you are saying that abortion is fine and more that someone under 18 is less, somehow, than that of someone over that age, and I am fundamentally against that.

But hey, mabye we should agree to disagree as none of us are going to change our opinions. But I can guarantee you that in 20 years, my views on the matter will be the same. Guarantee.