Age discrimination OK.... but only some of the time?

Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,714
Location
Toronto
Agree It's not about protecting anyone. It's not about the "right thing" by society. It's not about protecting the youth. It's nothing short of guardianism for profit. Breaking any of these laws generates a good revenue stream from many parties involved. It gives cops a chance to enter youth into "the system" - becoming a customer if you will, using baited activites (like drinking and partying, what youth can resist?) and collecting plenty of fines as they go along. It's a great opportunity to collect from retailers for selling to minors as well as from the minors/their parents. Widely applicable crimes lend policing the relevence of existence that they so badly need (why eliminating crime is in fact a CONFLICT OF INTEREST to any enforcement agency), not as sweet of a plum as speed enforcement, but youth drinking is no unpopular or dying sport. It's not about eliminating crime, it's about processing more people as criminals and essentially forcing them by law to patronize the legal/court system, and the best bait for that are the lowest hanging fruits. Get the youth early and you'll likely have a customer for life.
 

Al

Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Messages
19,536
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
As pointed out; age of 18 and "Citizen" are tied together in the 26th Amendment Any "right" granted by the constitution (which trumps States' rights) is granted to these "Citizens" The rest are "Privilages". That's why the Firearm issue will get straightened out to obey the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,714
Location
Toronto
Originally Posted by Al
The rest are "Privilages". .
Agh. The term privilege really bothers me. Cops always like to tell people "driving is a privilege, not a right", says who and when did I ever consent to that? How about birthrights? How about letting me direct my own life and locomote as needed? Oh what ... there's potential for risk and liability? Like literally ever other aspect of life? Does that by default preclude one's right to direct their own life as they see fit and thrust them into the realm and mercy of 'granted privileges'?
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
17,295
Location
OH
Originally Posted by Shannow
I agree wholeheartedly...at the point that you can decide that you can put your life on the line for your country, you should have every other right available to you.
We had conscription in this country within the living memory of many and eighteen year olds were subject to it, so there was no deciding. I was subject to the draft for a single year and my eighteen year old self might have been called to service with a nice commercial charter flight to Southeast Asia after basic. There was a movie, don't recall its name, where a young guy has an entire life flash through his head as he lay dying in Viet Nam. Could have been me, luckily it was not.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
23,194
Location
...
I think that we as a society have stretched out the age of youth over the past few decades. As a boomer I was at the tail end of an era when you made a decision upon graduating from high school. You could go to work in a factory or mill as a blue collar worker and make good money or you could go to college to be a professional. For some like myself, who didn't know what they wanted, the military became a good option. Now, college is almost mandatory for any decent job. For some, the costs of college are just too much so the military can be enticing. Serve your time and get benefits for college later. So, instead of 18 being the end of school for most, it's now 22 or 24 or whatever. Meanwhile, the older laws are still in place.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Originally Posted by Al
The rest are "Privilages". .
Agh. The term privilege really bothers me. Cops always like to tell people "driving is a privilege, not a right", says who and when did I ever consent to that? How about birthrights? How about letting me direct my own life and locomote as needed? Oh what ... there's potential for risk and liability? Like literally ever other aspect of life? Does that by default preclude one's right to direct their own life as they see fit and thrust them into the realm and mercy of 'granted privileges'?
I don't know about your country, but in ours, certain rights are granted in the Constitution and the bill of rights. The rest, well I guess that falls under privileges. Don't even know what you mean by birthrights. Society is the one that creates the laws and that's the one that will throw you in jail when you don't obey them no matter what you think.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
7,708
Location
New England
Statistics used at time to pass age 21 drinking law showed the rise in traffic related deaths rearated to the lower drinking age of 18. As a society our 18-21 year old population is not great at the drinking and driving thing. I wonder if modern things like Uber would help this out?
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
7,708
Location
New England
Originally Posted by Oily_Thing
Another interesting age thing: Around here we have laws for juveniles (under 18), but lately we are charging juveniles as adults for the more serious crimes. Why have juvenile laws if we are going to charge them as adults?
US society likes (long/harsh) punishment and less about rehabilitation of criminals unforuntately compared to the first world...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 19, 2017
Messages
1,249
Location
New Hampshire USA
Then there is this; some psycologists say males are not fully matured until 25 years while some females are mature at 20 or so. The Liberterian in me says states should make thier own rules if any at all. It`s rediculous when a state changes law from 18 to 21 say for drinking. When I joined the Army at 20 Icouldn`t drink but when I got yo Ft. Dix I could. No big deal tho.
 
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
15,197
Location
North Carolina
I've always felt that the differences in age for drinking vs gun ownership vs military did not make sense. Whatever you determine the age to be, i feel that; If you can die for your country , you should be able to drink a beer. Be that 18 or 21. If you can join the military, you should be able to purchase a firearm or drink a beer. Whether that's at 21 or 18 it should be consistent.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
Originally Posted by spasm3
I've always felt that the differences in age for drinking vs gun ownership vs military did not make sense. Whatever you determine the age to be, i feel that; If you can die for your country , you should be able to drink a beer. Be that 18 or 21. If you can joint the military, you should be able to purchase a firearm or drink a beer. Whether that's at 21 or 18 it should be consistent.
You can be thrown out of the military if you don't measure up. There's no real way to revoke your drinking privileges if you can't handle it. Hence the higher age. Basically too many bad actors ruined it for everyone else.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,614
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
So why do we have such a controlling attitude towards some "rights" and not others?
The short answer is laws that are changing the age to do certain things (ie, buy/own guns, smoke, drink, driving laws, etc) are driven by the actions of society between the ages of 18 and 21. People in this age range just don't seem as mature and adult acting, as a whole, as they did decades ago. If it keeps going that way everything will be off limits to anyone under 21. Watch the movie Idiocracy sometime. grin2
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
6,170
Location
the canyons
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
So why do we have such a controlling attitude towards some "rights" and not others?
The short answer is laws that are changing the age to do certain things (ie, buy/own guns, smoke, drink, driving laws, etc) are driven by the actions of society between the ages of 18 and 21. People in this age range just don't seem as mature and adult acting, as a whole, as they did decades ago. If it keeps going that way everything will be off limits to anyone under 21. Watch the movie Idiocracy sometime. grin2
Might have to make it 31 if maturity and acting like an adult is the criteria. I have an extended family member who is 25, and she's married to a 27 year old. They both live in her parents house, have expensive cars supplied by her parents, are completely supported by her parents, have all the latest gadgets, go out to eat, sporting events, travel all over. And they would be homeless tomorrow if mommy and daddy cut them off... This is disturbingly common among their friends, too. I'm not betting on them ever growing up. duh
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
442
Location
California
Originally Posted by itguy08
In the USA when a male turns 18 they MUST register with Selective Service and can be sent to war to kill people and destroy stuff. Takes a huge emotional and physical toll on many. Yet in the past that same 18 year old was not "mature enough" to vote. That 18 year old today is not "mature enough" or "developed" to have a drink of alcohol. Really? They are told they must fight and die for their country (which IMHO is very mature) but can't do other things "adults" can?
The reason the military wants young adults is because they're immature, not because they're mature. The lack of maturity in that case is considered desirable, whereas the lack of maturity in buying a beer at age 16 would not be. In order to have a functioning military, you need young adults who are obedient and can be brainwashed into doing something they've been taught since age 1 is morally wrong (killing another human). Younger adults are also less likely to have children and more likely to pass physical fitness tests. A military comprised of older front line soldiers probably wouldn't be a good idea. Not only would they be physically weaker but they'd be psychologically harder to control, more likely to question orders, more likely to think for themselves.. They'd be very hard to recruit as well, as most of them would have families already.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,373
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Interestingly, some of you have brought up conscription. That was actually on my mind when I started this thread, but I had not included it initially. This would be legal discrimination based on gender. But it's germane in a similar manner to the topic of age discrimination. First, there's a difference between Conscription and registry for service. Conscription is the governmental act of forcing you into service. Whereas registration (via the SSS) is merely accounting for your presence and whereabouts, should you need to be contacted. But, admittedly, the topics co-mingle fairly easily and it's realistic to say the registry would lead to Conscription, should our leaders set a "draft" in place again. I have a 21 year old daughter, and a 19 year old son. Just last year, my son had to sign up in the SSS (Selective Service system), as a male. That started the conversation in my family about why my daughter didn't have to do so. Well - because SCOTUS ruled back in the early 1980s that a female was not required to do so, because Congress established "due process" by deliberating the act of Conscription when it debated it on the floor of each House. This, too, is full of massive irony. In today's world, we're told that women are equal. OK - why are they not eligible for Conscription then? We let women serve voluntarily, but not mandate them to sign up? What kind of moronic garbage is that? If we're so "enlightened" as a society, why delineate the mandate at the chromosome level? And what of the topic of selective gender assumption? The SSS actually has a policy for all that, based on the "law", but I would argue that it's outdated as well. As far as the SSS is concerned, if you were born with a male genitalia, you must register, regardless what you walk around with now, and vice-versa for those born with female genitalia; you get to walk away, even though you're a "man" now. Believe it or not, the SSS actually addresses most of this; main page: https://www.sss.gov/ who should register: https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration (note - illegal aliens .... I'm sorry, "undocumented immigrants" ... must also register. Perhaps a few are missing from the registry?) https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft/Backgrounder-Women-and-the-Draft "The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA's gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DoD's policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women." But again, in my opinion, the topic itself is full of hypocrisy. It's time to revisit this as a Nation. Born with a male or female genitalia? Does not matter to me. Decide to alter your physical equipment? Does not matter to me. I'll coin the old phrase .... What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. Equal Rights should also mean Equal Risks, regardless how you're equipped. I see this no different than the hypocrisy of age discrimination in some topics. Yes - I would support my daughter having to register for conscription. I've taught her that she is every bit a person as any other human, but with those rights and privileges also comes responsibility and accountability. She is no more or less a human person than my son, and why should have to take a risk that she does not have to take, simply because of gender? I am for conscription; I have no issues with the registry itself. Only the gender discrimination I find fault with. And it's not the SSS at fault here; it's we as a Nation not demanding equality in every circumstance. At some age, you shall have your "rights" acknowledged as an adult. My opinion is that whatever that age is (18, 19, 20, 21), it should be fully equal across the board for all rights. At some point in your life, you choose to retain or attain a gender. My opinion is that whatever your choice is, you should still have to register for Conscription. I get angry at all the talk of equal this and equal that, but we still tolerate serious age and gender discrimination at many deep, fundamental levels. If we are so forward-thinking and enlightened as a society then why are these practices still in place?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
7,708
Location
New England
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
So why do we have such a controlling attitude towards some "rights" and not others?
The short answer is laws that are changing the age to do certain things (ie, buy/own guns, smoke, drink, driving laws, etc) are driven by the actions of society between the ages of 18 and 21. People in this age range just don't seem as mature and adult acting, as a whole, as they did decades ago. If it keeps going that way everything will be off limits to anyone under 21. Watch the movie Idiocracy sometime. grin2
I am not convinced the maturity or adult acting is such a bad thing at age 18-21. Some stupid idiotic decisions made in the past by 18-21 adults IMHO: * getting married * getting married having kids * women rearing kids at that young age so they have no career choices later because they are unqualified to do anything
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
7,881
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by dnewton3
First, I ask first that this NOT become a topic of politics; this isn't about any party or sect. Keep it between the lines and don't veer off the road, please. I cannot emphasize this enough; I want this thread to be about how we define permissible acts, not about your personal bent against something political. I am seeking opinions; there's no right or wrong here, but I want to give you something to think about, and then please answer AFTER you consider the inputs to the question. This is centered around the laws of the US, but I suspect our friends to the north are similar. Definition: "Young Adult" is anyone 18 or more years old, but also under 21, and of sound mind (not adjudicated unfit, etc) for the purpose of this conversation. "Rights" are that which are allowed by federal and/or state law. Background issues: So here's the basis for context ... Many things are withheld from young adults, presumably because they cannot make a good decision for themselves. At least that's the explanation I hear all the time. Young adults should not drink; they are not old enough to make a good decision. Young adults should not be allowed to smoke; they cannot make a good decision. Young adults should not be allowed to buy firearms; they cannot be trusted to make a good decision. Some of the most fundamental decisions regarding health and freedom, etc are either removed from a young person's grasp, or on the table as fodder to be removed soon. There is a push in Indiana where I live, to up the smoking age to 21, and the Hoosier state is not alone here. There is a push in some states to up the age to purchase any and all firearms to 21. Yet, in many states, once you turn 18, you can choose to quit school even before you graduate. You can marry irrespective of parental consent at 18. You can engage in legal contracts at age 18. You cannot be barred from free travel at 18. Once you turn 18 you can waive your rights to counsel and silence at interrogation. You can join the military at age 18. You can legally terminate a pregnancy at 18. Essentially, right now our nation and states have a hodge-podge of age-related laws that honestly can be called sanctimonious and dubious and confusing. All these things are major, potentially life altering decisions. So why do we have such a controlling attitude towards some "rights" and not others? Question from either viewpoint: If a person can be trusted to vote, wed and get a credit card, then are they not smart enough to make ALL the other significant choices in their life? Or, conversely ... If a person is not smart enough to make ALL significant choices regarding their own lives, then why do we let them vote, abort a fetus, and sign contracts? For me, this is about hypocritical age discrimination. I don't really care if the age is 18 or 21 for these things, but I do believe we should be consistent in message and tolerance. My opinion is that if we can trust them to vote, they should be allowed to do all these things. If we cannot trust them to make their own major life decisions, then they should not be allowed to do any of these things, voting or otherwise. I advocate for a even-keeled system. I am not trying to remove any rights; only apply them in a consistent manner. Either 18 for all, or 21 for all. If I cannot trust you to pull a trigger, then I cannot trust you to pull a level in the voting booth. If I can trust you to buy a car, then I can trust you to buy a pack of cigarettes. If I can trust you to be accountable for your own tax filing, then I can trust you to sip your favorite wine or bourbon. This isn't about the singular individual. We all know some really smart, savvy young adults whom are mature beyond their years. And we know some aged adults whom cannot be trusted to tie their own shoes. I'm speaking in generalities here. Admittedly there must be an age of consent for self-determination; the line must be drawn somewhere. Why is the line not a straight line; why does it snake around certain topics? Have you ever tried to rationally explain to a young person why ... - they can abort a fetus, but cannot buy a gun? - they can marry another, but cannot drink champagne at their ceremony? - they can die for their country, but cannot possess a cigar to celebrate their high-school graduation? (if they chose to finish school in the first place) Why are we, as a society, so freaking full of hypocrisy in our approach to these topics?
The age is somewhat arbitrary and designed to fulfill certain culturally driven ends which themselves are at odds with each other. For example with regards to the conscription (i.e. Draft) in the US the minimum age during WW1 was initially 21 then reduced to 18, WW2 it was originally 26 and then reduced shortly thereafter to age 18 where it has remained ever since. So why for example does the draft age of 18 not match up with the drinking age of 21? Simple, it's because the military needs volunteers who, as a group, underestimate risk and are easily trainable (i.e. more adolescent). This of course is exactly why the drinking age was raised to 21 (State Law, as there is no Federal Law). A couple of years ago a study came out on the brain development of young adults and it determined that for men, their brains did not fully exit adolescence until around 23 and for women it was a little sooner. I think most of you guys would probably agree that when viewed as a group it seems to match up.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
7,629
Location
Connecticut
Originally Posted by Kage860
I always felt we have the drinking age wrong, instead of going older we should go younger. Let the kids that are going to drink experience it years before they get a drivers license not wait until they're already on the road.
This. Most 21 year olds have already engaged in under aged drinking anyway. If you can sacrifice your life for your country at 18, you should be able to enjoy it's freedoms. With that said, I think 18 should be the age for driving as well. If you kill someone with a vehicle due to negligence when you first get your driver's license, you should be punished as an adult, since operating a vehicle is an adult responsibility.
 
Top