ADULT!!IAM ONLY 19 YEARS THATS MEAN IAM NOT ADULT YET ..NOW WE ARE FREE NO ONE CONTROL AS BUT WHEN BECOME ADULT EVERY ONE WANT TO CONTROL AS (THAT NOT NICE )...WHO BECOME ADULT MAKE MANY THING THAT THE TEEN AND THE CHILDERN CANNOT DO IT ON OTHER HAND
BUT I DON'T WANT TO BECOME ADULT Quote
“Humor helps us to think out of the box. The average child laughs about 400 times per day, the average adult laughs only 15 times per day. What happened to the other 385 laughs?”
The difference: Women weren't given the right to vote. Society at the time was highly exclusionary, so any sort of 'rights' applied only to white upper class males. First Nations up here in Canada couldn't legally vote until the 1960's, because of racist beliefs and exclusion....but then rights were extended to them, because rights should be guaranteed to all people.Why can't women vote? Because it's common sense. Show me the difference?
Now, how smoothly do you think it would go if people started saying "hm...maybe we were wrong to give women the right to vote...so let's change it." Not very....because it is suddenly taking away rights from people.
The 'common sense' of women not voting is based on exclusion, the answer for why women didn't vote is because they weren't allowed to. There was nothing to back up any firm argument for why they couldn't, other than opinion (upper class men didn't think women should be allowed to vote). Now that was backed by a 'tradition' argument, because men had been the only ones to vote, so men thought it should stay that way. But the argument relied only on opinion, nothing else.....women fought for, and recieved the right to vote, which extended them rights and most importantly, legal status.........So, it's not common sense that women can't vote, which is why women are now able to vote because the right has been extended to them. Common sense implies that it is a widely known fact accepted by the people, who are "the commons"....but this wasn't common sense, because women didn't accept this as being true. Since it's backing was only based on opinions of white upper class males, women were able to fight for the right to vote, and win.
Now, with the common sense of the military using younger recruits, that is backed up both historically and currently by recruitment processes, and numbers and figures. It's not an opinion that the military has relied on young recruits, it's an accepted truth, thus common sense. The military has, and always will, rely on the younger recruits whatever the accepted age may be. In times of conscription, they'll take the young before the old (look at the "missing generation" of WWI.....it wasn't the old generation that disappeared...it was the young...But the young conscripts didn't have rights at the time...it was just pick up a gun, and get out there.....this was the same time when people went to work at age 14, which I discussed earlier....rights were extended to them to protect them from such military service).
If this wasn't the truth, then militaries would not be going to high schools and universities to try and increase recruitment. Norway wouldn't make military service mandatory immediately after high school. The US military even released a playstation game not too long back as a means of increasing interest and recruitment...Who was the target audience for the video game? Youth.
But those go hand in hand, because if the government did come out and say that the age is too early, then the next course of action would be to change it. So I'm saying it wouldn't work because you'd have people who would be losing complete legal status. On top of that, with the military side, the military could possibly have enlistment rates slow down because of such a move, so I don't think they'd support the idea either.That is the entire point of the question being proposed in this thread. Not just changing one thing or another but the whole picture. The question being asked is whether we have moved the age of majority to early not whether people would be ticked if it was changed back.
By saying that it's not about whether people would be ticked or not, it is overriding the opinions of others. It is saying "Group A doesn't think Group B should have legal status as an adult," countered by "Group B doesn't think their legal status should be taken away." You are effectively saying that Group A's legal status AND opinion completely override that of Group B.
So, it's not a protective measure, it's a controlling measure, because rights and legal status are being taken away. It is moving back to similiar thinking of "women can't vote," because it is exclusionary at its core. The opinions of whether people would be ticked or not do count, because if you suddenly start taking away legal status of people without caring what they think, you end up with dictatorship. What's to stop legal status and rights being taken away from the older generation then?
Here's a question for ya, and answer truthfully.....would YOU personally give up your legal status if people suddenly started asking for that? No right to vote, no right to own or rent a house, no right to make personal adult decisions, and so on and so forth...all adult rights denied to you. Would you give them up just like that?
The movement of age change from 14 to 16 to 18 and all of that has been the growth of extending rights and status to people, it was not taking anything away...it was not exclusionary....it was including them....The proposal of changing the legal age of adulthood is completely opposite, as it taking away legal status and rights.
Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!
Personally I don't see age as what makes a person an adult. Though some are the age which they are considered an adult, they don't act like one. They don't take responsibilities they should very seriously. 18 you are considered an adult here, though you really can't do much until you're at least 21.
Raising the age limit would not bother me. I'm only 17, but I don't care. As far as I'm concerned I'm more of an "adult" then many "adults" around here.
Come dance in the rain with me, no one is watching.
In the history of the US there were states that had womens votes which were stripped from then when blocks of women voters voted against certain influential men. In the state I live of Utah, when it was first formed as a territory womens votes was written into the constitution. The US congress required it be removed in order for it to be approved to statehood. You are also ignoring my previous examples of driving ages, drinking ages, and marriage ages. All in all completely bursting the basis of your it can't be done because it would remove rights rather then grant them. Rights are removed all the time based on legislation and what the "common people" believe is correct.
Now you tell me how many 18 year olds are going to care if they can't vote?
When I was 18 and if the reasons I have given were presented to me? Yes, I would have in a heart beat. It makes sense. It's not a case of saying "we adults have decided we don't want to include you in the club" but rather "this is what science has discovered about mental and physical development so were are returning to the previous standard of adult age."
Well your an unique case. When i was 18, I would have been madder than hell if they raised it to 18. So will alot of ppl. A few studies pointing one way don't mean, "this is what science has discovered about mental and physical development so were are returning to the previous standard of adult age." SOme studies point towards evolution, don't mean its correct. Even so, not everybody matures at the same rate. Some are really mature at 18, and deserve the adult status.
Arrianna you sound like your 80, young ppl have to be given a chance to learn to be adults sometime. All this raising of the age will do it slow that down, and deny some bright people career opportunity's. If you want them restricted form doing certain things make laws that will achieve this. Not take away all their rights and freedoms.
Yes it was and times are different. People in the old days grew up slower. They didn't learn the ways of the world till they were at least 21. It was a much more innocent time. In todays fast pace modern world, they grow up faster.You keep missing that part. 21 used to be the standard for the age of majority.
Yes for one thing, but this is taking away everything. Removing all freedoms adults share. Society sees you as nothing until your an adult, and i wouldn't want to do that to these young ppl, Lowering them back to second class citizens status.Governments try new ages for various licenses all the time and then change their minds when the evidence shows they should. Hence the tightening of requirements for drivers licenses in many states including my own.
you'd be surprised more than you think.Now you tell me how many 18 year olds are going to care if they can't vote?
objective? haven't really seen that in your posts as of yet. Not saying im remeaning objective though.lol, hardly. I just like to be objective about societal issues because they are so easy to get attached to emotionally. I hate people trying to jerk me around with feelings over results.
In those terms yes, but i wasn't talking about that. I just mean young ppl were much more innocent back then. More sheltered if you will. They weren't exposed to the crap like they are today(i.e. Movies, TV, Internet, Nastier Society, etc...). Times were much simpler back then also. People just grew up slower in that era. They had to work earlier, but were more innocent and naive.Lol, really? Everyone keeps telling me they grew up faster then. Apprenticed into a business at 14, possibly married by then in some places, lower life expectancy, etc... So which is it really?
In the eye of some adults, yes im saying exactly that.So are you saying that todays youth are second class citizens?
Well when you take things away, you'd be surprised how many would bitch for the hell of it.Well considering that some 30% actually voted in 2000 and that they were less then 9% of the voters that turned out... I doubt I would be surprised. Especially since that was not a standard year and it's usually lower.