Youth Rights - Serious Issue or Arrogance?

I sometimes go to some teen forums, although I much prefer it here. There are three types of posters, and only three: A spiteful Bush-lover, a pretentious "everything's fascist!"-type "thinker", and most rare of all, an actual thinker that can reason, and take stands.

A lot of the issues that come up are youth rights. In the aftermath of culture-changing tragedies like Columbine (and other school shootings/stabbings, the most recent attempt being in Washington state) and 9/11 have created an inevitable and somewhat unavoidable climate of suspicion and tension. After all, nobody wants to be the laid back guy that could've stopped 15 kids from being shot up, or an entire skyscrapper bombed to bits, but didn't because he trusted people (*cynical laugh*).

I went to this site, called "ASFAR", and another, called "Hatred Sucks". Both deal with the oppressed youth. I'm wondering if this is an actual reality which warrants a black civil rights movement style of attention, or an arrogant hyper-sensitive exaggeration of the expected heavy security measures following those two events I mentioned. The following is a personal gist of what seems to be the major youth issues.

VOTING AGE: Lower it to 16, by all means. If only 50% of the adults are voting, let some smart kids take their place. And it's not like waves of kids will ballot-stuff or something. If it's such a concern, set up a particular system of registration that would be too time-consuming for the unserious would-be voter. Every election, there's a risk of a prank election where a bunch of drunken frat boys tip an election. Never happens. Why should it be such a concern with kids just a few years younger then them?

CURFEWS: Some curfews are simply cartoonish. There's one where a kid can't be seen outside after 11 PM without a parent. Sounds like a dictatorial country. This is not America. Sounds more like the Soviet Union or North Korea.

DRINKING AGE: 21 seems awfully high. At least take it down to 20. So many of my 15 year old friends drink alcohol. I don't, I don't like the stuff. It's an effectual law. What difference does it make if one drinks illegally at 18 or legally at 18, without any policeman knowing? Lowering it would at least cut down on time-consuming arrests, trials, patrols, etc.

SMOKING AGE: Whatever the smoking age is now, I agree with it. Cigarettes cause a lifetime of addiction problems, and the cigarette industry relentlessly targets children. Don't let them creep in.

BEHAVIORIAL MODIFICATION INSTITUTIONS: Yikes, these are like remnants of a Stalinist Russia. Embarrassing, appalling, and outrageous. Please, get rid of them.

COMPUTER GAME BANS: This one makes my blood boil. I've played and enjoyed games for 6 years. It has never made me more violent. The odds that a teenage criminal will enjoy games is like 1-1 because duh, every guy will like games. Accusations of desensitization just come off as wishful thinking to a time when kids didn't know what blood looked like until 12, if there ever was a time.

MUSIC LYRIC BANS: The type of music I indulge in has no lyrics, so I'm not too interested or involved in this issue. I guess there are some lyrics that cannot be tolerated on mainstream TV, like "I want to rape your mother" or "F*ck your religion", but they shouldn't be prevented from being made and listened to. It's society's job to teach the young why such statements are wrong, and why every person should be treated with dignity.

DRESS CODES/UNIFORMS: I personally like uniforms. They're quite comfortable, and I think they're rather chic and make you look more sophisticated. But I don't think imposing them on EVERY public school in the country will solve anything. At my school, which has uniforms, there are still obvious cliques and groups, even with uniforms. Group bullying is still there. The best pro for uniforms is practicality, but it's too drastic a measure to address an issue (money for clothes) which shouldn't take federal precedent over more serious issues, like bullying, guns, knives, etc.

I, however, get very pissed off when some dumbass calls a dress code, "fascist". Okay, some dress codes are very obtuse. Those may be "fascist". But dress codes in general are not. The school has a right to expect some things from the dressing of students while they are in its building. What those things are should be bargained over by the people.

FREE SPEECH: This is a hazy issue. In an episode of Boston Public, there was a formal debate between these Dungeon kids and the official school debate team. A Dungeon kid kept ranting when it wasn't his turn, and the judges told him to shut up. Then he claimed his free speech rights were violated. In my mind, I was like, "Sit down and shut up dumbass, and let the other voice be heard!" "Free speech violations" such as these, which include disruption and antagonism, is not a wrong thing. If a teacher is trying to get through a lesson about, say, Hitler, and a student keeps disrupting by defending him, and the teacher sends him out of the room, that's not free speech violation. That student was violating the right of others to learn, and the teacher's right and duty to teach. If there was a dicussion or debate, then it'd be a different story. And teachers should be required to give open discussions. But when a student disrupts the learning process of a classroom by ranting, that's not a right to be defended. It's arrogance IMHO. "Oh look at me! I'm so much smarter than you guys, so you should listen to me, not this stupid teacher!"

PUBLIC SCHOOLING: No doubt that standardized education is bad. I hardly enjoy most of the stuff in my classes, and I'm the "smart kid" of the grade. I love books and reading, but I don't really enjoy English class, for the most part. I always behind on required reading because I read other books, and the questions asked require only the most obvious answers. So I always borrow books from the library that I want to study, and take notes and research the subject. I learn stuff at school, but not everything I want to. I really want to learn American history, but we only do Canadian, which is less eventful and colourful. So what's the solution? IMHO, a standardized education won't be for everybody, so if you are willing to learn more, there's always the library to go to. Luckily, my teachers have always been fun and interactive. But I know not everybody has the benefit of that. I think the solution is for the young people to create a future where teaching becomes a more valued and fun occupation. Some of the kids like to act up when they're bored, and that's not the solution IMHO. You're only going to aggravate and discourage the teacher, who in turn will be drained of will and enthusiasm to teach a funner class. It becomes a repeating cycle. I think it's up to us to educate ourselves, and change the future, not piss and moan about how everybody else is so dumb. I also think it's up to parents to teach kids there's more to education outside of the 8 hours of school a day, such as independent studying.

Those are all the issues I can think about now. In most ways, I agree with this movement. But some other times, it comes off as arrogant and pretentious, as if these all-knowing kids think they're better and wiser than the archetypal meanie that every adult/parent is. Kids deserve rights, but parents deserve the right to some authority though. After all, most go out of their way to go beyond just feeding and clothing their kids.

pocketbook issues score major points with them. Nobody is taking up for people that belong to the 18-21 year age group so needless to say they don't find it important to vote for anybody.
A vote withheld is still an exercise of power. A vote withheld means that the person didn't find any of the candidates worthy of the time that it takes to walk to the polls along with pulling the lever. I've exercised that same power with no apology for the last 12 years and I will still offer no apology.

seriously.

The person in your picture has the best chance of capturing the youth vote because of his commitment to social justice, economic justice and his adamant stand on peace. If any other person is given the Democratic nomination other than him I see a lot of 18-21 year olds giving everybody the finger.

On edit: I think only another FDR is going to be able to get them out to the polls. The problem is that it's going to take a major disaster to get another FDR elected.

PS: If I find a candidate that I do not respect on the ballot then I'm going to write in Marshall Mathers because he is better qualified to represent me better than 3/4ths of the jokers in DC.

While I can see that a vote witheld can mean that the would-have-been voter didn't like any of the choices offered, I can't see it as an exercise of power.
You're not exercising anything.
for a hypothetical,

You've got 1000 registered voters. 2 candidates that don't trip anyone's trigger. Candidate "A" has 100 friends and family he can count on, and is a real asshole who has delusions of "owning" the town. Candidate "B" has 10 friends, and is a clueless wimp who won't do any good, but won't do much harm, either. The other 890 voters stay home to "send a message". Candidate "A" wins, and frankly, he doesn't give a rat's ass if the whole furking town sent a Candygram for Mongo, he's in and that's that.

What "power" did the 890 who stayed home exercise?

These idealists who "Send MESSAGES" and withold their votes actually allow small cadres to figuratively "rig" elections anbd run things. And my experience has shown that they're usually the ones who bitch the loudest about how things are being run.

includes me.

I will not waste time out of my day to vote in between a crypto-republican shitbag and an outright fascist. The lesser of two evils is still evil and I will walk away from a choice like that every single time.

I will take my toys and go home over ever having to play a shitty hand of cards every single time that I get a chance.

Then there could be no doubt about the Voter's intentions.

I was thinking today, in my hypothetical example, the winner doesn't care who stayed home and why, he's just glad he didn't have to resort to a recall to win.
The clueless loser sits in his "headquarters" while his 10 friends gather around and tell him it's all because of "Voter apathy"..

If there was a lever to pull, or a spot to punch that would register "NONE of these CLOWNS" and the results came out "Boss Hogg" 100 votes, Wimpy 10, and None of the Above 890, Then perhaps THAT would "send a message". Kind of hard to claim that the people don't care when the majority go out and say "YECH!"

My point is and always will be, that you can send all the messages you want, but as long as the intended recipients don't acknowledge receipt, you're just indulging in something to impress the coffee-shop cuties...

with everything you said ESPECIALLY on the voting age thing. Seriously, if kids are smart enough to know the issues and pick a candidate, let them!. But, overall, I agree. I think that young people do, in fact, deserve more rights in general...

I'm really big into personal responsibility, and not the republican brand. Drinking age? 18. Smoking age? 16. The restrictions should be heavy on the corporate side, not the personal side. Most people who start smoking start by 16 anyway, but I'm biased: I smoke.

I live in Northern Virginia, and I can guarantee you, if the voting age was lowered, and the youth was motivated, Virginia could have been blue in 2000. The kids around here are much more liberal than their parents, the majority atleast.

Most at HHS to seem to be more liberal.

"you don't understand your children so you send them all to jail. Believe you'll never make a worse mistake." :idea:

So you're in favour of public school uniforms? I'd be interested to hear your side.

I can't bring up uniforms at a teen forum without the F-word, "fascist" thrown around. As I said, I like uniforms personally, and get really grilled when anybody brings up the conformity issue, because that must mean since I like school uniforms, I'm a conformist, while they're so much above me. I'm a real fashion dud, so clothes mean very little to me. That must have something to do with it.

whether one defines rights arising from natural or man-made law, the a priori assumptions are the actual conditions of the parties involved and their context as related to the world.

infants have a right to life because they carry the potential for sentience, but they have no responsibilites and can not vote.

adolescents can in part fend for themselves, but again have few responsibilities.

society and western culture have been forced to use an arbitrary benchmark of age to define when rights are fully granted. while this benchmark may be absurd upon examination in particular incidents, it is the best overall method to ascertain rights which does not taint the benchmark with additional arbitrary and subjective valuations.

only an eighteen year old would argue that he/she is an adult. older people know better, not because they are smarter, but because......read my sig line......

reactionary, elitest thing I've ever heard. The difference between an adolescent and an adult is subjective, there are people younger than myself (17) that have experienced more than you and I have, and there are people who live in such a shell that they go through their whole lives without experiencing anything at all. The only prerequisite that should be required to make your own decisions is your ability to abstract. If you're 12 and can think as lucidly as the average person twice your age, you should have all the rights, and responsibilities that they do. The opposite is true as well.

and as usual, you, like all youth think that all those older never were themselves young and went thru the same thing. we all do. when you are in fact "older" you will understand this.

beforehand, you might want to spend some more time in the library (rosseau, locke, and kant on theories of rights perhaps) and on the highway of life before you subject the rest of us to more teen-aged brain farts.

your posts are so adolescent and so utterly ignorant that you dont even know it, yet.

knowing that you someday will is that which i find quite amusing in dealing with you, and the only reason i am posting a response back.

nestled in my post, which you obviously and obliviously ignored was my clear declaration that society has used age itself as the benchmark for granting full rights as a matter of convenience. there was no subjectiveness to that statement, but i did note that such an arbitrary benchmark is in and of itself subjective (that's kind of what the adjective "arbitrary" means), a matter of societal convenience so to speak, and which, if you had stopped to think more clearly, actually supports much of what you insist upon, viz., that some youth are more mature than others and should have more rights.

you fail to realize that you are not an adult just because you think you are or because via copulation can bear young. there are external features which society places valuation upon that determine if a person is to enjoy full-fledged rights. if you are not deemed totally responsible for all that you do and receive from society then your rights are subject to restriction.

its really that bloody simple.

if you are not paying all your own bills, carrying all your own weight as a functioning member of society, so to speak, under what scheme of yours is one to be considered an adult with fully granted rights in the society? and more to the point, define for us how such a society operates effectively and upon what is society valuating by doing such.

ponder that rights have nothing to do with the individual alone or what the individual innately is. it is only in the context of social interaction that rights exist, only because there is interaction between individuals. there are no "self-rights" just as there are no "self-ethics" and any right or ethical behavior is formulated only within the context of a social system which has placed valuation on certain things and ideas, and these are, without exception, always based upon experience, not adolescent wishes.

its why i pointed to my sig line.

do yourself a favor. print out our little discussion and put it away for a year or two, then come back to it. you'll see how funny and ignorant you were here.

BTW i have taught high school and college for years, and kids with ideas like yours are about as rare as the fish in the sea.

you, and your statements are in fact, quite normal.

and i wouldn't want it any other way, because it is a reflection of the hope that springs eternal in the hearts of the young as they reach for maturity.

just remember to keep on reaching.

"Ah!...But a man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

Robert Browning

and you continue to insult me, and you continue to insult young people, because you view yourself as above us. Because you are older. That's all you're really saying. I'm older, I've experienced more; I don't want you whippersnappers having rights: I don't trust you.

Now do yourself a favor, go back up, and read my post, and point to me where I made any claim of originality in my ideas. While you're searching I'll be over here "reaching." Don't break your hip! ;-)

The poster did not insult you, young firebrand.

He or she simply stated that the wisdom of years imparts
you with a perspective that a young person cannot possibly
imagine.

In fact, you were commended for your exurberance.
Many of us nonteens would like to go back to that time
knowing what we know now.

The poster said that due to the limitations of any sort of
subjective test, an arbitrary age is the cut-off, out of necessity.
Further, nothing was said about not giving rights to the young, and
did not view himself over you. Just more experienced than you. That's
no claim of being better or more important. Just having a different
perspective.

A perspective that you will have one day.

felonious thunk

There's a fundamental difference right there. Until they leave home, teens are given everything they have. Not to say that parents have no obligation to feed and clothe their kids, but there's no biological contract that says that parents have to keep their kids looking fashionable, drive them across town to birthday parties, send them to expensive schools, etc. By nature, all a parent has to do is keep the child healthy and alive, and most parents go above that, so we all owe our parents a great deal, although I wish I didn't forget that as much as I do.

Adults have authority over teens because adults carry much of the burden. They have to earn money, keep the homes, transport their kids, fix meals, etc. In return, they have authority over the ones they look after. There's nothing wrong with this. But teens also deserve some autonomy and justice. They're not exactly adults. It doesn't seem fair that a teen should enjoy full authoritative benefits of being an adult while only holding onto 1/3 of the responsibility. However, fair sentences (in court), fair input (in elections), fair institutions (in schools), etc. are not luxury perks, they are God-given human dignity rights.

16 year olds should be able to vote. They're mature enough to be affected by our leaders, they should have their input.

A teen should still heed the wishes of a teacher who wants to be addressed formally. After all, it's the teacher who has dedicated his/her life to youth. Don't be a brain-dead zombie, but show some respect where people deserve it. I get pissed off when students pick on teachers. Teaching is a pretty sad job right now, the last thing our education system needs are snotty kids making life even more miserable for the dedicated adults who want to help kids.

When someone turns 18 or gets married,emancipated,joins the armed services they have all the responsiblites of some one who is 21,30 or50. Many are working and surporting children many are in the Armed Services fighting for others rights that they themselves do not have. so please inform me of the responsiblites that 18-20 year old do not have.

I recall a saying about the natzis When they came for the Jews catholics,etc, I did not speak up becasue I was not a Jew OR Catholic. Then when they came for me there was no one left to speak up . Or something like that Now in more moder times that saying goes like this When they came for the Women,Children,gays,African Americans,latinos,Catholics jews,poor,youth,and etc.

The right wing movement wants to take rights away from those people mentoned above bit by bit little by little they will strip society of their rights.

It will help them get elected and it is fair. I have always thought all those laws were funny anyway all they do is complicate and over load the legal system And it is not like anyone obeys those particullar laws. Any group of people who do not have equal rights is a serious issue all of those laws is part of a Righ Wing Attack on civil liberlties.

How many 16,17,18 or 19 year olds work at the store and let there friends who are under 17 go ahead and buy R rated movies and video games 99% and it is not like they could not pay some one money to buy it for them.

On the drinking and smoking age it is many bars are willing to sell it to people under 21 which gives them a reason to charge a higher price. And it is not like half of them do not have fake ID's. Alcohol can be nautally made with just juice,surgar and yeast. So are we going to ban those iteams to people under 21. Alcohol prohibition did not work neither dose this.

Voting age should be lowered especially since it would benifit the Democratic Party. Curfews are most popualur in the south and should be challged in the courts.

We all must rember we have 17-20 years old in the armed services and last time i checked legally when you turn 18 get ,emacipated,married or join the armed services You have all of the legal responsiblities of some one who is 21,30 or 50.

I think the most hostile feeling towards youth and young people are in the Republican Party especially in the south. I grew and still live in the south and many of my family are Republican (I pray for them).
:kick:

When politicians need a scapegoat, what do they go after? They go after the young. Notice how often old Holy Joe Lieberman attacks video games. Who plays video games? Young people. Young people have no money, so young people have no political clout. It's also tons of fun to enact draconian laws denying young people of their civil liberties, such as eliminating their rights to privacy. Conservatives are always deathly afraid of the young because they're the uncontrollable element of society that might actually develop independent thought if treated like they were human.

VOTING AGE: Lower it to 16, by all means. If only 50% of the adults are voting, let some smart kids take their place.

IF - and only if - the polling place is in the school itself. Most adults have independent transportation, but not all kids.

CURFEWS: Some curfews are simply cartoonish. There's one where a kid can't be seen outside after 11 PM without a parent.

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, curfews are there because some parents are too weak to say 'no.'

DRINKING AGE: 21 seems awfully high. At least take it down to 20.

It needs to go back down to 18 at least, and 16 or lower for parentally-supervised drinking.

SMOKING AGE: Whatever the smoking age is now, I agree with it.

If a 16 year old wants to blow their lungs out, it's their business.

BEHAVIORIAL MODIFICATION INSTITUTIONS:

these need to go.

COMPUTER GAME BANS: This one makes my blood boil. I've played and enjoyed games for 6 years. It has never made me more violent.

It's a parent's right to decide if you're going to play vid games on a computer they probably bought, using electricity they probably pay for and, if interactive, on an ISP they pay the bill for.

If it's in-school you're talking about, your local taxpayers have every right to say 'no' to their resources being wasted.

MUSIC LYRIC BANS: The type of music I indulge in has no lyrics, so I'm not too interested or involved in this issue.

Business and state-imposed bans are silly. But once again, if you want to use home resources your folks are paying for, it's up to you to convince them the values they try to instill in you aren't going to come into conflict with what you're hearing.

DRESS CODES/UNIFORMS: I personally like uniforms.

Should be left up to the school boards to decide. The theory is they remove class distinctions, the reality is everyone knows, anyway.

FREE SPEECH:

Not to be confused with disruption.

I also think it's up to parents to teach kids there's more to education outside of the 8 hours of school a day, such as independent studying.

You would be correct.

That's why I wouldn't want a laissez-faire attitude when it came to narcotics and substances for teens. A lot of smokers that are older deeply regret their tunnel-vision when they got hooked on cigarettes when they were 16. If we decide as a society that it's okay to let teens screw up their bodies because we don't want to take responsibility, that's something I would heartily disagree with. I think the drinking age is ideal at 19. 18 is legally adult, but a lot of kids will be finishing up that all-important senior year of high school. When they're nineteen, they're completely out on their own, on their way to college or a job... Then they have all the rights imaginable to drink and smoke all they want.