As we all know, 18-21 is usually the age that people are defined as "Adults"
As they are now "Adults" they are allowed to Drink Alcohol or Gamble at a Casino, Legally allowed to have sex with other "Adults" and what not.
Now I would like to know what exactly defines an "Adult" and who decided that age 18-21 defines an "Adult".
In my eyes an "Adult" is a person who can handle themselves well in public, be smart enough not to overdose drugs or alcohol. Not Be Racist. And overall just have good manners and common sense.
I don't understand why Age describes adulthood. I don't want to toot my own horn but I find myself with more manners and common sense than quite a few adults I have met.
- 34 Replies
Fair enough, but there has to be some legal precedence. By your criteria, I would think very few people would actually be considered adults.
Considering the evolution of private property and voting rights, combined the ability in America for individual states to determine legal adulthood, an age limit as opposed to tests of mental faculty seem a more reasonable approach to adulthood, even if there are inherent flaws.
you can define adulthood in 2 different things. The first one is when u are fully grown and that is around 18-21. And when you can take care of yourself and get responsible(some people are are already resposible when they are 14 and some arent when they are 30).
Averages have much to do with it. It really isn't feasible to test everyone all the time on how responsible they are.
Also, experience has a lot to do with maturity and no matter how mature you think you are at 15, you'll look back at age 30 and know differently.
Huh... I thought this was going to be discussing pedophilia. Oddly enough, I do support mass intelligence tests, but not to determine responsibility or maturity... to determine class in society. But that's a different matter.
I know that in Missouri they are voting this year on changing the drinking age back to 18, which I think is reasonable considering what other things you can do at 18. But it does mean a loss of federal funding for highways, so a ton of construction is slated to be finished before the end of the year. Maybe it'll catch on...
17 is too young...
Huh... I thought this was going to be discussing pedophilia.
lol mega, I honestly thought the same, but hey, this is probably a better topic to discuss.
I'll just add a side note for now- regulations on averages are one thing, the reality that evolves from it are another. There is a huge body of evidence that these laws are not being enforced or even properly backed up in the rise (at least in Australia, but most likely the US as well), in teen-pregnancies and alcohol abuse, as well as a number of important background factors such as prevalence of homelessness and child-abuse etc.
Surveys will reveal that the median age for first exposure to binge-drinking and sex in Australia is ~14 years of age. The attitude is generally "it's not illegal if you don't get caught", and exactly what are the circumstances that one would get caught?
"Oddly enough, I do support mass intelligence tests, but not to determine responsibility or maturity... to determine class in society. But that's a different matter."
Hah. I find this amusing in many ways.
Wow, Yeah my title of this article did suck. I'm not a pedophile if anyone is wondering.
I just think that there are some people that are under the age of 18-21 who are better suited as an adult than people who are say 25-26 years old.
I know its not ideal to take mass intelligence tests but I do believe some people should not be considered adults if they cannot act better than people younger than them.
I'm not a pedophile if anyone is wondering.
Given your age in your profile, it would be very difficult to even think of a way a DSM-IV approved diagnosis would even be applied to you :P
I could go on in great detail about the criteria for such things, because there are, as is the nature of this topic, many nuances. But obviously that's off-topic, so I'll save it for elsewhere.
Hm, okay, so let's come back to the original thrust and maybe emphasise something else. Moegreche has pointed out that we need a legal precedent, which serves as justification for the existence of such thing as a legal age based on chronology as opposed to some "standardised maturity assessment".
The question then is: Do you think the current standards are acceptable? What are the criterion that ought to be paid more attention to? For example, I've pointed out the discrepancy between the documented behaviors and the letter of the law when it comes to drinking and sex.
The condition for there to be an argument to change these laws would be to demonstrate that in their operation, they do more harm than good. For example, one could focus on the controversy over whether to try a person "as a child" or "as an adult", as is an increasingly reported trend with regards to violent crime.
Strop actualy might be a Pedo
Now you're just spamming :P
No I'm not spaming I really do see why people like Strop like to talk about pedophiles.
It's because they have a cecret admiration with Michael Jackson
Okay, now you're just trolling :P
Where I live, age of sexual consent is 15, as is consentual marrage. I think "adulthood" is a state of mind, and can only be truly determined by the person in question of there "adulthood".
Thread is locked!