3 ms·
Hey, as long as you're consistent and agree that kids shouldn't be able to get loans or join the military until 26 either. Edit (since you edited your number d
by seattle_spring 7y ago
Hey, as long as you're consistent and agree that kids shouldn't be able to get loans or join the military until 26 either.
Edit (since you edited your number down from 30): And vote.
- pseudolus 7y agoWhy should one particular age (18) be regarded as a bright line for a range of activities? Wouldn't it be better to overcome the rigidity of present conventions in favour of a more rational system that correlates certain rights/obligations as a function of neurological development?
- meddlepal 7y agoBecause other systems lead to abuse where people are deemed "not X" for a variety of reasons including race, religion, gender, sexuality, politics, thoughts, and many other reasons.
- pseudolus 7y ago>>other systems lead to abuse All systems lead to abuse, including the existing system that artificially selects one age for a variety of rights/obligations with the notable exception being alcohol consumption. The rational approach would be to find a system that creates the minimal level of abuse. If that's the current system then so be it, but an effort should be made.
- meddlepal 7y agoPlease explain how an absolute system based on age to adulthood leads to abuse, because I'm not seeing it. Edit: it's a binary system. You either are or are not.
- pseudolus 7y agoThe original article refers to one instance with potentially negative consequences where the age of majority (18) is the basis for access. Why not, in line with the authors' suggestion, increase the age to 25?
- sjy 7y agoSimplicity. Neurological development takes place at different rates for different people, but it's an invidious thing to measure, so it's best not to try, at least until neuroscience gets better.