+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 41 to 48 of 71

Thread: Are you an "adult"?

  1. #41
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    They certainly take older soldiers (I think the maximum age is 45), but there has always been a reliance on younger soldiers within any military....
    I take it you haven't been keeping up with the changes that have been occurring in the military for the last 10 or so years? With the integration of technology in the military they are moving away from the numbers game to highly trained, supported, and specialized smaller units. The need for large numbers of disposable "dogfaces" for non-existent front lines is disappearing.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  2. #42
    Otaku Chubz may be famous one day Chubz may be famous one day Chubz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver Island, British Columbia
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    But even with the new technology, and smaller units, the main recruits that the military goes for are young recruits. That's why they hit up high school and universities to try and get people to join. They still take older recruits, but militaries have always relied on younger ones.

    The new technology means that they just have better control over the battlefield, and there is less fog of war, so they can conduct operations with more intel. They don't need as many people working the new technology, but at the end of the day, they still need soldiers, despite the size of the unit. It doesn't matter if the unit sizes are smaller (the US army is hurting for military right now, which is why they've lowered entry standards), the focus for recruiting age is still around 18.

    Look at Norway....after highschool, students immediately go for 2 years military training (I think it's 2 years). It's not something you can delay, or say "i'll do it later..." After high school, you're doing military service. The reason it's straight out of high school is because the military relies on younger recruits, and it's easier to break patterns to train.

    Technology doesn't affect the age of recruitment....it stays the same from 18-45. BUT, the military has always had a reliance on younger troops...ergo, if the age was moved up, it could possibly slow recruitment, which the military probably wouldn't like. The main focus has always been high schools and universities, although they take all ages from 18-45.

    Also, the military wants a good amount of service time from soldiers in case of wars, and although they take people up to 45, the 45 year old won't have that long of optimal serving time, whereas a younger person who stays with the military will have a far longer amount of serving time.

    Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

  3. #43
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    You're using circular logic Chubz. The military always has depended on young recruits so they always will. They always will rely on young recruits because they always have. Let me point out that your logic has one serious flaw in it beside a lack of support. That flaw is that young recruitment used to mean 14 and then later 16 years of age, now it's 18. I see nothing to prevent another change since it is all determined by what society considers acceptable. I'm not sure I want an 18 year old behind the helm of an Apache Helicopter defending me but what does society think? After all I keep hearing how these "young soldiers" shouldn't have to go to the front lines to face death. Hmmmmm.....

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  4. #44
    Otaku Chubz may be famous one day Chubz may be famous one day Chubz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver Island, British Columbia
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    And my point is that I don't think the military would fully support a move to make the age 21....Yes, the age has moved up according to changes within society, it's the same as how kids used to go to work back when they were 14, and higher education was practically unheard of. But that wasn't changing the legal status of being an 'adult.' Nothing was being given up by the younger people in terms of legal status, these measures were enforced to protect. It was economic factors of the time that caused kids around 14 to go to work, it wasn't because they had been given some sort of legal status that allowed them to work...it was the lack of any legal standards that allowed children to work, and economic situations meant that families had to have everyone working in order to make a decent income. Because of those conditions, military employment was well within the accepted age of the time. It was relevant to its time. (At the same time, working conditions weren't regulated, so you had increased amount of worker deaths/serious injuries....governments stepped in, and now working conditions are regulated.....all of this was protective measures. They recieved rights, they didn't have them taken away).

    BUT, they weren't giving up any legal status with these changes to age requirements...It was giving them legal protection by the government. They were only age requirements, meant to create a more educated class, because alongside these changes was mandatory schooling up to a certain age, whereas schooling hadn't been enforced before.

    The proposal of changing the age of majority isn't simply an age requirement....you're changing the legal status of an individual, and having them give up certain rights which have been guaranteed to them by the government. So I don't think there would be much of a smooth transition in the first place for that one...you can be sure there would be protests...

    So, when it comes to the military, it would be removing legal rights of people, and could potentially slow recruitment. I don't see the military supporting that.

    My logic doesn't need support simply because it is common sense. As you pointed out with the circular argument, the military has, and always will rely on young recruits. That cannot be contested in any such way. The change in age was simply governments beginning to actually regulate themselves and create certain protective rights. The change in age from 14, 16, to 18 have been protective measures, as rights weren't taken away, but extended, protecting them from military service. The 14 year old couldn't vote, nor could the 16 year old, because they didn't have the right to vote. So when the age was changed up, it wasn't taking anything away. It was, as I mentioned earlier, a protective measure to ensure a more schooled class. What the kids recieved in exchange was an education, and legal protection from underage working. It was extending them rights, because of the lack of legal rights that protected kids.

    From: Under-aged voting
    Under the original U.S. Constitution, the voting age was set at 21. It was at 21 that a young person became an official adult in the Western tradition. English common law established the age of 21 as the minimum eligibility for knighthood.

    Throughout time, all societies have recognized the important distinction between childhood and adulthood. (The concept of "adolescence" is only a century old.) While it is true that in some societies adulthood comes sooner than in others, American childhood does not fully merge into adulthood until the completion of formal education and eligibility for military service at age 18. Hence the 26th Amendment to the Constitution in 1972 that lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.
    The changing of voting age from 21 to 18 was an extension of rights, and was not taking away any rights. The proposal of changing the age of majority is taking away legal rights, with nothing in return. It's not a protective measure, but a controlling measure. If you take away ANY rights of an individual, it is a controlling measure.

    Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

  5. #45
    Otaku MistressMorgan may be famous one day MistressMorgan may be famous one day MistressMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Im not sure but someone get me out of here!
    Posts
    194
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    I think 21 is way too old to be considered a legal adult. I myself had to move out of my parents "care" when I was 16 and that was hard enough. I couldnt get a bank account, credit card or an apartment.Of course I made my way by renting a room from a friend and paid for everything with cash, but I really needed the credit to get into a real apartment. After a year I had to forge my parents sigs as cosigners to find a place to live. Not somethin I am proud of but if I had to do that for 5 years instead of 2 I would probably be in trouble with the law by now.

  6. #46
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    The changing of voting age from 21 to 18 was an extension of rights, and was not taking away any rights. The proposal of changing the age of majority is taking away legal rights, with nothing in return. It's not a protective measure, but a controlling measure. If you take away ANY rights of an individual, it is a controlling measure.
    So what? You are still using the same logic which has no basis other then tradition. Drinking ages have been changed, rights removed until someone was considered old enough to do so responsibly. There were those who didn't like that. Legal ages of marriage are changed all the time to be stricter. Your argument (no matter how many words you give it) all comes down to the military won't like it because it's not tradition. So what. That doesn't mean it can't happen for the exact same reason the ages were changed before. People don't want someone that young fighting in the military. If that is the case it won't matter what your common sense says because the common belief will be otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubz View Post
    My logic doesn't need support simply because it is common sense.
    Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I'll use that anytime someone doesn't agree with me. "I don't need a reason it's just common sense."

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  7. #47
    Ecchi Enthusiast Classic Donkey Kong Champion, Balloon Bomber Champion, Fishing Impossible Champion, Festival Of History : Archery Champion, Dare Devil Champion, Little Monkey Does Champion, Dragon Champion, Barty Champion, Cheesy Champion, Chicken Attack Champion, Moo Lander Champion, Hang Stan Champion, Hangaroo Champion, Sentenced Champion, Canadair Champion Miroku4444 may be famous one day Miroku4444 may be famous one day Miroku4444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 25 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    So what? You are still using the same logic which has no basis other then tradition. Drinking ages have been changed, rights removed until someone was considered old enough to do so responsibly. There were those who didn't like that. Legal ages of marriage are changed all the time to be stricter. Your argument (no matter how many words you give it) all comes down to the military won't like it because it's not tradition. So what. That doesn't mean it can't happen for the exact same reason the ages were changed before. People don't want someone that young fighting in the military. If that is the case it won't matter what your common sense says because the common belief will be otherwise.
    Yeah, but taking away someones status as being an adult, versus tightening Legal ages of marriage or raising the drinking age is a little different. Taking away someones adult status is alot more a loss of rights than the others.

    Raising the drinking age=Can't drink
    Tightening Legal ages of marriage=cant get married

    Raising the age of maturity(Adulthood)= Loss of career opportunity's, Cant serve in the military, loss of respect, No porn(hahah), loss of legal rights, getting credit will be harder, landing an apartment will be impossible, and so on.

    Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I'll use that anytime someone doesn't agree with me. "I don't need a reason it's just common sense."
    This is borderline flame bait. Dont let me see you doing it again. Hes entitled to his opinion.

  8. #48
    Otaku Chubz may be famous one day Chubz may be famous one day Chubz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver Island, British Columbia
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Are you an "adult"?

    But changing the age of majority completely changes all rights, not just one or two...drinking ages have been changed, but it doesn't exempt people from being legal adults. They changed the lottery age up here quite a few years ago, but it didn't change the legal status of the individual.

    Those are age requirements, whereas changing the age of majority is changing the complete legal status of the individual. They are losing all of the rights guaranteed to them.

    The reason why the ages were changed before was because the governments were beginning to regulate things more, which is what my last post was talking about. It was extending rights to the 14/16 year olds, because up until then, there wasn't much there in terms of legal protection/rights.......changing the age of majority is completely opposite because it is taking away rights and status with nothing in return.....those changes, and this proposal are completely different....it's apples and oranges...

    So they could change the age, but it would not be for the same reasons as they were changed before...those were protective measures and extending rights, this proposal is a controlling measure and is taking away rights and status, with absolutely nothing in return.

    But, it's not a 'tradition' argument....they don't go for young recruits out of tradition. They aim for young recruits because they are easier to make into a fighting force (there's extreme extremes like in South Africa, where babies are stolen so that they can be trained into fighting forces in guerilla warfare). They also get more servicable years out of younger recruits in the military. So it's not a tradition argument, it's just common sense that militaries aim for young recruitment......common sense doesn't need much support, because it is common sense...that is, the majority of people (the commons) know this fact to be true. If you are worried about support, please show me support saying that this isn't true, and not a commonly accepted fact. But looking at any war, or any military will show that it has always been younger recruits, with the older generation serving as military officers (military officers consisting of a waaaay smaller percentage of the military)

    No matter what the age will be (whether it be 14/16/18/37...who knows?), the military will aim for the youngest age allowable before they do the oldest. Now, factor in taking away the legal status and rights of individuals, and I don't think this will have much support within the military. It's not a tradition argument. It's not just changing the recruiting age.


    If this is to be broken down into one main argument, then I would say that the one argument that should be focused on is that the proposal is taking away the legal status of individuals as an adult, with nothing in return. It is a controlling measure, not protective.

    Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: Aug 20, 2006, 10:46 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 11, 2006, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts