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

Win

Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
4,703
Location
Arkansas
As designed, almost all of these were rights, liabilities, or privileges, or not, as defined by the law of the particular state in which the individual resided. Since it was thought, with some justification, that people of like mind would cluster in a like minded state, variation from state to state was to be expected. The application of one size fits all Federalism, via the commerce clause, has caused the result you see today. Whether excessive federalism is good, or not, is an opinion. It was not the intended outcome.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,614
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
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? . . . 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?
Even though it's 2019, men and women are still very different from each other in many respects. Forcing women to register to possibly fight to the death on the battle fields isn't something most women are "wired" for like men are - it's been like that since the caveman days. Innate brain wiring is hard to re-wire. Not saying women couldn't do it, I think we all know that an army made of all or mostly men is stronger and more effective. Sure women can do other jobs in the military other than all out front line battling, and that's good. Some might like to fight to the death (hence an allowed voluntary role for that), but IMO most wouldn't when it really came down to it. And the same can be said to a certain extent about how 18-21 year olds think and act vs people 21+ year olds. Many studies have shown (as mentioned by others in this thread) that brain development and thinking isn't quite fully developed in the 18-21 year old range. I grew up in the mid west, and at the time the drinking age was 18. Some of my friends and I were 18 years old half way through our senior year in high school. We could go out drinking legally, and did ... saw some of our teachers at the bars. Also did stupid things like drive after drinking, not even thinking about any possible consequences. At 18 most people just don't have as much forward thinking ability as someone 21+. Our type of behaviors was probably one of the main factors why the drinking age of every state went to 21 way back years ago. When negative results of people's actions becomes a problem then laws start popping up to help control the problems - that's just how laws made by man work.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
17,295
Location
OH
Originally Posted by xfactor9
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.
What made eighteen year olds so desirable was that they could easily be made physically fit with a little PT and they have no concept at all of their own mortality. The average eighteen year old is also very anxious to prove himself. What's not to like about such inductees?
 

Al

Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Messages
19,536
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
As far as drinking and being in the military. The base my daughter was on..the State drinking age was 21. But that does not apply on a military base (the age there is 18) smile So if you are in the military you can drink on base.
 
Last edited:

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,373
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dnewton3
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? . . . 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?
Even though it's 2019, men and women are still very different from each other in many respects. Forcing women to register to possibly fight to the death on the battle fields isn't something most women are "wired" for like men are - it's been like that since the caveman days. Innate brain wiring is hard to re-wire. Not saying women couldn't do it, I think we all know that an army made of all or mostly men is stronger and more effective. Sure women can do other jobs in the military other than all out front line battling, and that's good. Some might like to fight to the death (hence an allowed voluntary role for that), but IMO most wouldn't when it really came down to it. And the same can be said to a certain extent about how 18-21 year olds think and act vs people 21+ year olds. Many studies have shown (as mentioned by others in this thread) that brain development and thinking isn't quite fully developed in the 18-21 year old range. I grew up in the mid west, and at the time the drinking age was 18. Some of my friends and I were 18 years old half way through our senior year in high school. We could go out drinking legally, and did ... saw some of our teachers at the bars. Also did stupid things like drive after drinking, not even thinking about any possible consequences. At 18 most people just don't have as much forward thinking ability as someone 21+. Our type of behaviors was probably one of the main factors why the drinking age of every state went to 21 way back years ago. When negative results of people's actions becomes a problem then laws start popping up to help control the problems - that's just how laws made by man work.
Not everyone in the military has to die, or even fight in combat. Sure, they are TRAINED to do so, but that does not mean they must be placed in positions to do so. Even when Conscription was in place, the men were first assessed for fitness, then trained in basic training. But they they get additional assessments for specific duties. Many never saw combat. There were Conscripted men who had medical experience; they became doctors and/or medics. There were Conscripted men who had mechanical experience; they became mechanics on all manner of equipment. There were Conscripted men who had skilled-trades experience; they became electricians, plumbers/pipe-fitters, welders, etc. There were Conscripted men who had low physical abilities; they became clerical persons, equipment operators, supply chain personnel, language translators, etc. Get the point? I agree that ALL persons whom would be conscripted would get basic training, and many are able to head to the front lines (men and women alike). But forcing someone into service does NOT mean they automatically head right to the front lines; there are many other venues they could serve in, should they not be a good fit for battle. A Conscripted woman could serve well operating a drone just as well as a man. Conscripted women could become any manner of support personnel; operating cranes, loading ships, maintaining aircraft, etc. And some Conscripted women could actually fight, and fight well! But let's not just leave them at home on the door step as if they cannot serve. I am pro-SSS; I believe that every able-bodied person should have to register, and should Conscription become necessary, then those persons should be used according to their abilities. I am anti-hypocrisy; it's one of my deepest pet-peeves. If my son should have to answer the call, then why not my daughter? If my daughter does not have to answer the call, then why should my son? My opinion is that registration with SSS should be for ALL able-bodied persons. And as for the age topic, which is reasonably germane to the overall concept of equality here, I only ask that we be consistent in how we treat young adults. Again - if you're old enough to be allowed to decide about aborting a fetus, then you should be able to be trusted to buy a firearm. If you are old enough to make up your mind in the voting booth, then you're old enough to drink and smoke. Or, if you believe they should not have some of those choices, then why any of them? Are not ALL of those choices major life decisions? Are they not all decisions that have serious consequences? Are they not choices that present significant forks in our roads of life? In my mind, it should be all or none; there is NO LOGICAL, RATIONAL explanation as to the disparity of rights with regard to age. Pick one age (I don't care which it is) and stick with it across the board. My opinion is that whatever age society deems appropriate, that age should be the delineation for ALL rights.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
12,254
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Not everyone in the military has to die, or even fight in combat.
I've had some pretty bad days that completely defy this ignorant line of thinking. You don't have to be combat arms to buy the farm for your country, and to suggest that you can be in the military and not die or fight is doing a disservice to people that I knew personally.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
19,708
Location
Sunny Florida
^^^Ouch. That was a terrible remark for sure, RVW. I had an old buddy die right out of high school when he went to Europe. During training exercises he was accidentally killed in a vehicle accident. No weapons required, there are real hazards...
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2018
Messages
400
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Originally Posted by Wolf359
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.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant rights. You already have the rights. The Constitution says what powers the people allow the government to have.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
7,875
Location
Scruffy City
Interesting subject. I do agree the age should be consistent, and probably generally lower. Looking back through history when lifespans were shorter people did things at younger ages. We've created through legislation or case law many things that do not make sense. We have the already mentioned juveniles tried as an adult (so you aren't mentally capable of making a sound decision, but we are going to hold you accountable for a REALLY bad one, it's frankly moronic). Beyond the age distinction we say a police officer can lie to a suspect to get what they want, but if a suspect tells one little fib the police officers (and everyone else) think they are lying about everything Talk about hypocrites!. (Hint, if you're lying, you're a lier, cop or not). Should we not be holding Police Officers to a higher standard, not a lower standard? I could go on and on, but I believe in most basic terms, you are either for freedom or against it. If you are for freedom, you must accept that people are free to do things you may not like or to suffer the consequences of bad decisions as well as reap the benefits of good ones.
 
Last edited:

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,614
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
We have the already mentioned juveniles tried as an adult (so you aren't mentally capable of making a sound decision, but we are going to hold you accountable for a REALLY bad one, it's frankly moronic).
I don't think it's moronic to charge a juvinile as an adult for murder given the circumstances. That's what the laws do on a case by case basis - some get charged as a juvinile and some get charged as an adult. Pretty much any human that's 12 years or older and sane knows murder is very wrong. As far as making everthing one age, the way social behavior and mentality is heading it seems like 21+ would be more appropriate these days than 18+. But if you think about it, making everything one age (regardless if that's 18 or 21) probably wouldn't work as well as specifying age restriction based on a case by case methodology like it is now. It's logic based on human behaviors, not "discrimination".
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
17,295
Location
OH
Okay, but some states have felony murder statutes in which an accomplice can be charged with murder as an adult when the alleged victim shot and killed one of the other perps. Don't think so? Look at a current case in Indiana in which the vic shot and killed one of the perps and another was convicted under a state felony murder statute just as though he was the shooter. Strange but true. Justice isn't always just by any standard. Unless you work in the system, you have no clue as to how variable the results in any given case can be. I know of murder cases pleaded to voluntary manslaughter with eleven years flat. It's all a matter of keeping your mouth shut and retaining good counsel, if you have the means to do so.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
9,373
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Not everyone in the military has to die, or even fight in combat.
I've had some pretty bad days that completely defy this ignorant line of thinking. You don't have to be combat arms to buy the farm for your country, and to suggest that you can be in the military and not die or fight is doing a disservice to people that I knew personally.
First I apologize if I offended you; not my intent. However my comment was very accurate. Not everyone dies in combat. Some die in training; that's true. My comment, though, was really meant to illuminate that not all people head to the front lines as a risk of dying in combat. That's was what I took from Zee's comment; that anyone in the military must be fit for combat. My point is that people not necessarily fit for combat (male or female) have many other opportunities to serve. The VAST majority of those who serve in combat survive. Those who don't see combat; they also survive well. Sure, there are casualties. There are injuries. There is PTSD. But most folks survive their military service without harm, no matter how they serve. While I cannot speak to exact numbers, I've heard that there are anywhere from 10 to 15 heads in support roles for those in actual harms way of combat. And that is my point to you, and Zee, and others. Just because someone may perceive that a woman cannot be strong enough for combat, there are LOTS of jobs they can do very well. So why not make them responsible for registering for SSS just like males??? BTW - I come from a long lineage of military vets, starting with my gr-gr-gr-gr-great grandfather in the Revolutionary war. One direct lineage in the war of 1812. Multiple in the Civil War; two for the north and one for the south. WWI. WWII. Korean war. One died. Most survived. One was injured. I am the first generation in my family to NOT serve in the military. I did, however, choose to serve in law enforcement; 23 years and counting. My apology if I offended, but then again, please don't be so sanctimonious as to think that because I didn't serve in the military, my family and I don't know what risk, loss and sacrifice are. And I did have a very good friend die in the line of duty; a squad-mate of mine at the SO. So yeah, I've experienced it firsthand.
 
Last edited:

4WD

$50 site donor 2022
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
19,643
Location
Texas
Long ways before wisdom sets in as we have seen allot on TV lately …
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,614
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by dnewton3
However my comment was very accurate. Not everyone dies in combat. Some die in training; that's true. My comment, though, was really meant to illuminate that not all people head to the front lines as a risk of dying in combat. That's was what I took from Zee's comment; that anyone in the military must be fit for combat. My point is that people not necessarily fit for combat (male or female) have many other opportunities to serve.
I think you read my post wrong ... please read again (below). I specifically said: "Sure women can do other jobs in the military other than all out front line battling, and that's good."
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Even though it's 2019, men and women are still very different from each other in many respects. Forcing women to register to possibly fight to the death on the battle fields isn't something most women are "wired" for like men are - it's been like that since the caveman days. Innate brain wiring is hard to re-wire. Not saying women couldn't do it, I think we all know that an army made of all or mostly men is stronger and more effective. Sure women can do other jobs in the military other than all out front line battling, and that's good. Some might like to fight to the death (hence an allowed voluntary role for that), but IMO most wouldn't when it really came down to it.
 
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
6,763
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
We have the already mentioned juveniles tried as an adult (so you aren't mentally capable of making a sound decision, but we are going to hold you accountable for a REALLY bad one, it's frankly moronic).
I don't think it's moronic to charge a juvinile as an adult for murder given the circumstances. That's what the laws do on a case by case basis - some get charged as a juvinile and some get charged as an adult. Pretty much any human that's 12 years or older and sane knows murder is very wrong. As far as making everthing one age, the way social behavior and mentality is heading it seems like 21+ would be more appropriate these days than 18+. But if you think about it, making everything one age (regardless if that's 18 or 21) probably wouldn't work as well as specifying age restriction based on a case by case methodology like it is now. It's logic based on human behaviors, not "discrimination".
The moronic part about charging a juvenile as an adult is that in application, putting it nicely, it's all about "who you are". "Certain types" of people can commit acts that would make Stalin double over and vomit and yet face no real punishment at all, let alone "adult" levels of punishment. The Pinnacle of this problem was the Ethan Couch case, where a minor who slaughtered 4 human beings in one go never faced a day in jail. He was literally (I can't stress this enough) let off from jail time because his parents testified that they spoiled him and did such a poor job of parenting that he didn't know right from wrong. Violating his probation by doing more underage drinking and going on the run as a fugitive still didn't get him a stiff sentence. But then we have other children who haven't completed puberty getting decades in prison. The charging of minors as adults is one of the most arbitrary legal processes we have going in our country.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
24,364
Location
Central Florida
Etan Couch should of been sentenced to a minimum of 50 years for killing 4 people. I can't image how the families felt from a very light sentence. frown
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
2,279
Location
NC
I found it very frustrating how at some points in my youth I was able to legally drive and own a car, but rental agencies would not allow me to rent a car when I needed to. I was a working adult, and could not rent a car when traveling in the US in some places. This actually varies by state. Some states actually have laws forcing car rental agencies to allow drivers over 18 years old to rent cars. I think most car rental agencies still require you to be over 21years old, and most upcharge you if you are under 25 yrs old. How this is legal I do not understand.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
Originally Posted by GMFan
I found it very frustrating how at some points in my youth I was able to legally drive and own a car, but rental agencies would not allow me to rent a car when I needed to. I was a working adult, and could not rent a car when traveling in the US in some places. This actually varies by state. Some states actually have laws forcing car rental agencies to allow drivers over 18 years old to rent cars. I think most car rental agencies still require you to be over 21years old, and most upcharge you if you are under 25 yrs old. How this is legal I do not understand.
Probably too many cases where their cars were crashed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUy1z-mnoIU&ab_channel=micshaz
 
Top