- Neurology itself does continue developing throughout adolescence.
To do the bulletpoint pick-apart, heh, last time I checked here, neurology itself continues developing pretty rapidly until well into your twenties. Society in general is also more likely to give someone with some degree of arrested development legal responsibility than someone underage. There's also very little restriction on making legal decisions while under the effect of neurochemical influencing substances (though you can still be help culpable for making poor ones in that situation, of course). Mostly just noting that this is a really bad card to play. Society doesn't use neurological development -- at least not consistently -- as a measure of legal culpability, though there may be correlation between the two.
Correlation's only acceptable for use when you're playing a bit loose with methodology
(or you don't have anything better to use, which is a situation that needs fixin'.)
- For some issues, it's better to be safe when it concerns child development. Yes, there might be a twelve-year-old somewhere who's somehow experience, rational, socially educated, and ethically sound enough to make the decision to have a sexual relationship with a 45-year-old and get married. However, if you assume that all of them can, then you've effectively destroyed the entire legal distinction between "minor" and "adult". I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.
I think the point being made is that, while your situation would be bad, the fact that some number of individuals who are be capable of rational decision on-par with someone of a 'legal' age are effectively being denuded of rights for an arbitrary reason is
also bad.
Definitely less of an issue, simply due to the numbers game, but it's really hard to support the position that it's okay to strip some people of rights because most people in their situation couldn't use those rights responsibly, especially when what's being used to identify those individuals isn't a measure of their actual
capability, but instead some fairly arbitrary other attribute.
You don't think that children are less developed than adults in more abstract or less testable ways than academic knowledge? Driving is different, as you can test someone fairly objectively on whether or not they can perform it, which is why we test for licenses, but there's also an element of mature handling of the privilege, which is why there's an age limit as well.
The problem here is that age =/= mature handling of the privilege, which I think is what kaijyuu is pointing out. It's probably the
easiest measure to use and one that possesses a pretty high correlation to maturity, but it's definitely not a causative one. There should probably (
definitely, in my opinion) be a higher bar on a lot of age-restricted activities than there is, though that's a different argument..
Children voting? Where do you draw the line? Should people be able to vote the instant they learn to recognize a name on a ballot?
It'd be really bloody nice if there was actually a competency test at the ballot box, but there isn't. There's people who vote without doing more than making themselves capable of recognizing a
word (whatever their party is) on the ballot -- they couldn't tell the position and platforms of the names on the ballot from a lilypad.
Age isn't a good measure of the ability to comprehend and respond appropriately to political situations -- again, there may be correlation, but age certainly doesn't equal political savvy. Nor does experience.
--
Overall, re: Age: It's mostly just somewhat annoying that what amounts to logistical difficulties is preventing a number of people (a statistically small percentage, but when you've got a population of hundreds of millions, a numerically notable amount) from being able to contribute to society to the fullness of both their capability and will. That cost
may be acceptable for what it buys, but it's definitely not an ideal situation.
It's also a very, very, strange situation given humanity's historic background. People not too long ago were considered capable of making adult decisions at a much younger age (and still are, in parts of the world), which makes our current situation somewhat odd. At the very least, it undermines the necessity of high bar age limits considerably, I'd say.
By the way: Jailing someone for owning manga is not "thought crime". Sorry. Not that I necessarily agree with his getting arrested, but owning something is not thought, nor is its production.
Might not be a thought crime in a strict sense, but it's bloody close to it. Allowing for that sort of legal decision is a very, very, small step for jailing someone for owning particular non-visual literature that society deems inappropriate or simply thinking in the wrong way. It's a dangerous precedent that's actually managed to make a fair number of people completely unconnected with that sort of material very, very, worried.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 785406 times)