Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why does a 16 year old have same rights as a

luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.
luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

But you still need parental permission to do those things. Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:30:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

But you still need parental permission to do those things. Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.

So? You can get a job and drive. A 1 year old can't. You have more rights than a 1 year old.

Argument over.
luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:33:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:30:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

But you still need parental permission to do those things. Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.

So? You can get a job and drive. A 1 year old can't. You have more rights than a 1 year old.

Argument over.

But you still don't have enough rights. You still need your parents' permission to leave home and you are still under the control of their parents. What I mean by "rights" is not being subject to the control of your parents.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:43:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:33:31 AM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:30:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

But you still need parental permission to do those things. Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.

So? You can get a job and drive. A 1 year old can't. You have more rights than a 1 year old.

Argument over.

But you still don't have enough rights. You still need your parents' permission to leave home and you are still under the control of their parents. What I mean by "rights" is not being subject to the control of your parents.

No it isn't. You were talking about having the same rights as 1-year old. You have more rights than a 1-year old. End of discussion. That the right is not unrestricted doesn't mean it is a right. A 1-year old can't work or drive regardless of parental permission. Herp.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:09:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think trying to explain to a 16 year old why a 16 year old ought to have no more rights than 16 year olds do now (except I would be fine with 16 year olds buying beer and wine) would be a fairly pointless thing to do.
Tsar of DDO
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:48:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM, luvx wrote:
Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.

Maybe where you live, but not in Pennsylvania. I am out looking for a job right now, and I don't need a medical exam or any governmental consent.

Plus, depending on the state you live in, you can legally get laid at 16.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 10:22:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

Technically a one-year old can get a job---as an actor/model.
yang.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 10:23:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 10:22:48 AM, tulle wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

Technically a one-year old can get a job---as an actor/model.

Now you're just bragging.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 1:11:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

Because you are not an adult, that's why. It's really not that complicated.

Here are benefits you have as a child, and not as an adult:
1. Generally, any criminal act is not tried as an adult, nor is found in a background check.
2. You have people who MUST care for you (shelter, food, etc.).
3. You cannot be sued.

But, by all means, feel free to give up these protections and more, so you can be considered an adult. I'd love to see teens starve in streets instead of being provided for.

In case you didn't realize...
1. Your parents lose rights when they had you (they can be fined/imprisoned for not providing for you)
2. You can have all the rights you want (except things expressly prohibited by law like voting and certain purchases) if you are emancipated. So, go do that.
My work here is, finally, done.
luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 2:21:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 1:11:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

Because you are not an adult, that's why. It's really not that complicated.

Here are benefits you have as a child, and not as an adult:
1. Generally, any criminal act is not tried as an adult, nor is found in a background check.
2. You have people who MUST care for you (shelter, food, etc.).
3. You cannot be sued.

But, by all means, feel free to give up these protections and more, so you can be considered an adult. I'd love to see teens starve in streets instead of being provided for.

In case you didn't realize...
1. Your parents lose rights when they had you (they can be fined/imprisoned for not providing for you)
2. You can have all the rights you want (except things expressly prohibited by law like voting and certain purchases) if you are emancipated. So, go do that.

1. In many states, one can no longer be tried as a juvenile at 17. In two states, New York and North Carolina, that age is 16. If you could be tried as an adult, you should be treated like one (and after 12 or 13 you SHOULD be tried as an adult. You already had time to make foolish mistakes years before. Simply don't commit a crime.

2. If you are capable of taking care of yourself (nature wanted you to be able to take care of yourself at puberty), the NO ONE should provide for you. Most 16 year olds are capable of taking care of themselves but are forced to become dependent on their parents.

3. If you vandalize or intentionally destroy property, it's not fair for your parents have to pay for it. You SHOULD have to pay for it yourself.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 4:30:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 2:21:40 PM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:11:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

Because you are not an adult, that's why. It's really not that complicated.

Here are benefits you have as a child, and not as an adult:
1. Generally, any criminal act is not tried as an adult, nor is found in a background check.
2. You have people who MUST care for you (shelter, food, etc.).
3. You cannot be sued.

But, by all means, feel free to give up these protections and more, so you can be considered an adult. I'd love to see teens starve in streets instead of being provided for.

In case you didn't realize...
1. Your parents lose rights when they had you (they can be fined/imprisoned for not providing for you)
2. You can have all the rights you want (except things expressly prohibited by law like voting and certain purchases) if you are emancipated. So, go do that.

1. In many states, one can no longer be tried as a juvenile at 17. In two states, New York and North Carolina, that age is 16. If you could be tried as an adult, you should be treated like one (and after 12 or 13 you SHOULD be tried as an adult. You already had time to make foolish mistakes years before. Simply don't commit a crime.

Care to cite the law?
I know that for serious felonies you CAN be treated as an adult, but I have not heard that teens are automatically tried as adults period.

2. If you are capable of taking care of yourself (nature wanted you to be able to take care of yourself at puberty), the NO ONE should provide for you. Most 16 year olds are capable of taking care of themselves but are forced to become dependent on their parents.

LOL!!
Most teens (and young adults) can barely hold down a job, let alone be expected to take care of themselves. They are, largely by nature, irresponsible.

Do you think you could take care of yourself right now?
If you're parents kicked you out, could you survive on your own?
Rent, insurance, food, etc
I did, I bet my friends could have, but I don't think the majority would thrive.

Also, how are teens dependent on their parents?
Furthermore, what is this modifier that "most can take care of themselves", either they can or can't, as a group, not an individual basis. Sure, their are exceptions, but that is covered. Adult retards lose rights when they become legally incompetent, just like super-responsible teens CAN be emancipated.
Your modifier suggests that a good chunk of the teen population can't, therefore, the status quo is sufficient.

Take the good with the bad.

3. If you vandalize or intentionally destroy property, it's not fair for your parents have to pay for it. You SHOULD have to pay for it yourself.

You should pay for it, and I'd make sure my kid pays me back. The point is, you, as a teen, still have protections, thus, you have less rights.
My work here is, finally, done.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 4:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

you know its actually kind of funny that the legal rights are relative to location. In my state, North Carolina, you are considered an adult by courts at 16 but you can be tried as an adult at an age of 13
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 4:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 2:21:40 PM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 1:11:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

Because you are not an adult, that's why. It's really not that complicated.

Here are benefits you have as a child, and not as an adult:
1. Generally, any criminal act is not tried as an adult, nor is found in a background check.
2. You have people who MUST care for you (shelter, food, etc.).
3. You cannot be sued.

But, by all means, feel free to give up these protections and more, so you can be considered an adult. I'd love to see teens starve in streets instead of being provided for.

In case you didn't realize...
1. Your parents lose rights when they had you (they can be fined/imprisoned for not providing for you)
2. You can have all the rights you want (except things expressly prohibited by law like voting and certain purchases) if you are emancipated. So, go do that.

1. In many states, one can no longer be tried as a juvenile at 17. In two states, New York and North Carolina, that age is 16. If you could be tried as an adult, you should be treated like one (and after 12 or 13 you SHOULD be tried as an adult. You already had time to make foolish mistakes years before. Simply don't commit a crime.

2. If you are capable of taking care of yourself (nature wanted you to be able to take care of yourself at puberty), the NO ONE should provide for you. Most 16 year olds are capable of taking care of themselves but are forced to become dependent on their parents.

3. If you vandalize or intentionally destroy property, it's not fair for your parents have to pay for it. You SHOULD have to pay for it yourself.

To the bold: Yeah if this was 1960
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
luvx,
out of curiosity, should a 30 year old man be arrested for having consensual sex with a 16 year old?
should a teen be allowed to freely enter contracts, like loans and credit cards?
My work here is, finally, done.
luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:23:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think statutory rape should be illegal if the act was CONSENSUAL. Statutory rape laws really have more to do with society's view on sex than the implications for the "victim". They should be enforced on a case-by-case basis (i.e. the "offender's" relationship to the "victim." If the "victim" truly does not feel victimized, the "offender" should NOT be charged.

In many states, a juvenile can be transferred to adult court. In Kansas and Vermont, that minimum age is 10.
http://www.pbs.org...
If a juvenile can be tried as an adult for murder (because they know what they're doing) then "they know what they're doing " in terms of consenting to sex.

I think young people should be allowed to enter contracts, loans, credit cards, etc if they are responsible. They should be subject to the same rules adults are subject too.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 8:23:26 PM, luvx wrote:
I don't think statutory rape should be illegal if the act was CONSENSUAL. Statutory rape laws really have more to do with society's view on sex than the implications for the "victim". They should be enforced on a case-by-case basis (i.e. the "offender's" relationship to the "victim." If the "victim" truly does not feel victimized, the "offender" should NOT be charged.
So, teens are not victims of sexual manipulation by adults, IN ALL CASES, or not?
Obviously, if they were drugged or otherwise raped, it is not consensual. My question is, is a 30 yr old creeper that only hits on 16 yr old girls allowed to work his charms on easy prey or not?

In many states, a juvenile can be transferred to adult court. In Kansas and Vermont, that minimum age is 10.
http://www.pbs.org...
If a juvenile can be tried as an adult for murder (because they know what they're doing) then "they know what they're doing " in terms of consenting to sex.

This isn't what you said before, you said that they ARE tried, not that they can be (although you used different states).
And, this is the exception, not the rule. An "ought to know better" committing a heinous crime is not allowed to be absolved from said crime simply because of age (out at 21: a potential 4 year sentence for murder).
Similarly, emancipation offers these rights to teens that are the exception.

Laws shouldn't be passed for the exception, they should be passed in general.

I think young people should be allowed to enter contracts, loans, credit cards, etc if they are responsible. They should be subject to the same rules adults are subject too.

So, you believe that teens should be able to enter into any contract that may affect their lives for decades to come? You think a significant majority are that responsible?
My work here is, finally, done.
luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 9:02:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 8:51:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 8:23:26 PM, luvx wrote:
I don't think statutory rape should be illegal if the act was CONSENSUAL. Statutory rape laws really have more to do with society's view on sex than the implications for the "victim". They should be enforced on a case-by-case basis (i.e. the "offender's" relationship to the "victim." If the "victim" truly does not feel victimized, the "offender" should NOT be charged.
So, teens are not victims of sexual manipulation by adults, IN ALL CASES, or not?
Obviously, if they were drugged or otherwise raped, it is not consensual. My question is, is a 30 yr old creeper that only hits on 16 yr old girls allowed to work his charms on easy prey or not?

If they are victims of sexual manipulation the offender should be charged. The laws need to be changed so these laws are enforced based on the circumstances/context of the situation/act. Aren't adults victims of sexual manipulation by other adults? Shouldn't we have laws protecting them?


In many states, a juvenile can be transferred to adult court. In Kansas and Vermont, that minimum age is 10.
http://www.pbs.org...
If a juvenile can be tried as an adult for murder (because they know what they're doing) then "they know what they're doing " in terms of consenting to sex.

This isn't what you said before, you said that they ARE tried, not that they can be (although you used different states).
And, this is the exception, not the rule. An "ought to know better" committing a heinous crime is not allowed to be absolved from said crime simply because of age (out at 21: a potential 4 year sentence for murder).
Similarly, emancipation offers these rights to teens that are the exception.

Laws shouldn't be passed for the exception, they should be passed in general.

I think young people should be allowed to enter contracts, loans, credit cards, etc if they are responsible. They should be subject to the same rules adults are subject too.

So, you believe that teens should be able to enter into any contract that may affect their lives for decades to come? You think a significant majority are that responsible?

Yes. Research shows it too.
http://homeedmag.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 9:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 9:02:26 PM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 8:51:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 8:23:26 PM, luvx wrote:
I don't think statutory rape should be illegal if the act was CONSENSUAL. Statutory rape laws really have more to do with society's view on sex than the implications for the "victim". They should be enforced on a case-by-case basis (i.e. the "offender's" relationship to the "victim." If the "victim" truly does not feel victimized, the "offender" should NOT be charged.
So, teens are not victims of sexual manipulation by adults, IN ALL CASES, or not?
Obviously, if they were drugged or otherwise raped, it is not consensual. My question is, is a 30 yr old creeper that only hits on 16 yr old girls allowed to work his charms on easy prey or not?

If they are victims of sexual manipulation the offender should be charged. The laws need to be changed so these laws are enforced based on the circumstances/context of the situation/act. Aren't adults victims of sexual manipulation by other adults? Shouldn't we have laws protecting them?

Why? Being manipulated isn't a crime. Force or fraud, sure, but not playing someone who doesn't know any better.

The issue is, a young girl doesn't know what about many things, especially relationships, so a creep can use that ignorance to his advantage.


In many states, a juvenile can be transferred to adult court. In Kansas and Vermont, that minimum age is 10.
http://www.pbs.org...
If a juvenile can be tried as an adult for murder (because they know what they're doing) then "they know what they're doing " in terms of consenting to sex.

This isn't what you said before, you said that they ARE tried, not that they can be (although you used different states).
And, this is the exception, not the rule. An "ought to know better" committing a heinous crime is not allowed to be absolved from said crime simply because of age (out at 21: a potential 4 year sentence for murder).
Similarly, emancipation offers these rights to teens that are the exception.

Laws shouldn't be passed for the exception, they should be passed in general.

I think young people should be allowed to enter contracts, loans, credit cards, etc if they are responsible. They should be subject to the same rules adults are subject too.

So, you believe that teens should be able to enter into any contract that may affect their lives for decades to come? You think a significant majority are that responsible?

Yes. Research shows it too.
http://homeedmag.com...

This appears to suggest that teens being able to "be adults" is wholly dependent on their upbringing, and not the fact of their age. If someone is groomed for success, they are more likely to be successful.
And, that didn't really address my question. I asked if teens have enough foresight to make decisions that may affect them for decades, not asking if they are responsible in general.
My work here is, finally, done.
luvx
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 5:36:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 9:49:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 9:02:26 PM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 8:51:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/22/2013 8:23:26 PM, luvx wrote:
I don't think statutory rape should be illegal if the act was CONSENSUAL. Statutory rape laws really have more to do with society's view on sex than the implications for the "victim". They should be enforced on a case-by-case basis (i.e. the "offender's" relationship to the "victim." If the "victim" truly does not feel victimized, the "offender" should NOT be charged.
So, teens are not victims of sexual manipulation by adults, IN ALL CASES, or not?
Obviously, if they were drugged or otherwise raped, it is not consensual. My question is, is a 30 yr old creeper that only hits on 16 yr old girls allowed to work his charms on easy prey or not?

If they are victims of sexual manipulation the offender should be charged. The laws need to be changed so these laws are enforced based on the circumstances/context of the situation/act. Aren't adults victims of sexual manipulation by other adults? Shouldn't we have laws protecting them?

Why? Being manipulated isn't a crime. Force or fraud, sure, but not playing someone who doesn't know any better.

The issue is, a young girl doesn't know what about many things, especially relationships, so a creep can use that ignorance to his advantage.
A young wo/man knows more about relationships then you think. They are not ignorant nor naive. I said these cases should be enforced on a case-by-case basis. Not all the time the "victim" was taken advantage of.



In many states, a juvenile can be transferred to adult court. In Kansas and Vermont, that minimum age is 10.
http://www.pbs.org...
If a juvenile can be tried as an adult for murder (because they know what they're doing) then "they know what they're doing " in terms of consenting to sex.

This isn't what you said before, you said that they ARE tried, not that they can be (although you used different states).
And, this is the exception, not the rule. An "ought to know better" committing a heinous crime is not allowed to be absolved from said crime simply because of age (out at 21: a potential 4 year sentence for murder).
Similarly, emancipation offers these rights to teens that are the exception.

Laws shouldn't be passed for the exception, they should be passed in general.

I think young people should be allowed to enter contracts, loans, credit cards, etc if they are responsible. They should be subject to the same rules adults are subject too.

So, you believe that teens should be able to enter into any contract that may affect their lives for decades to come? You think a significant majority are that responsible?

Yes. Research shows it too.
http://homeedmag.com...

This appears to suggest that teens being able to "be adults" is wholly dependent on their upbringing, and not the fact of their age. If someone is groomed for success, they are more likely to be successful.
And, that didn't really address my question. I asked if teens have enough foresight to make decisions that may affect them for decades, not asking if they are responsible in general.

Teens do have enough foresight to make decisions that may affect them for decades.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 5:44:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Laws shouldn't be passed for the exception, they should be passed in general."

Uh, what? Laws should be passed that don't cover the exception, because, you know, it's an exception.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 11:20:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

But you still need parental permission to do those things. Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.

Of course you do... You're a kid. You're brain requires 6 more years to complete.

Don't confuse needing your parent permission to do something with not having the right to do something... It's literally the Government being that uncle that says "Sure, you can do it... Just ask you mom first." The idea is to enforce the right of the parent.

No, being 16 does not make you an adult... In fact, around 16, your intelligence figuratively drops under the weight of hormones and teenage pressures.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 11:23:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:29:50 AM, luvx wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.

But you still need parental permission to do those things. Also a teen is required to have a medical exam and the states consent before getting a job.

I don't know anything about a state consent... But even adults require medical exams before getting a job =.= drug tests, physicals (depending on the job)...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
xatoo
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 12:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:46:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
luvx,
out of curiosity, should a 30 year old man be arrested for having consensual sex with a 16 year old?
should a teen be allowed to freely enter contracts, like loans and credit cards?

I don't think a 30 year old man should be arrested for having consensual sex with a 16 year old girl. Female and male roles reversed as well of course. In fact under UK (from where I reside) law, it's not even a crime anyway. A few European countries are even as low as 14 or 15.

And I think yes they should be allowed to freely enter contracts, like loans and credit cards. In my humble opinion!
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 8:52:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.
That was rude. He or she has every right to debate without being treated like that.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 5:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 8:52:06 AM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.
That was rude. He or she has every right to debate without being treated like that.

No he doesn't.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 5:31:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 5:30:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/3/2013 8:52:06 AM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.
That was rude. He or she has every right to debate without being treated like that.

No he doesn't.

Yes he does. No one deserves to be treated like that. Just because you can't debate doesn't mean that you can be a you know what to people.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 5:36:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 5:31:49 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 11/3/2013 5:30:08 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/3/2013 8:52:06 AM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:28:16 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 7:24:29 AM, luvx wrote:
A 16 year old is more advanced than a 1 year old, yet a 16 year old has the same rights as a 1 year old. (I mean legal rights). It just doesn't make sense.

You can get a job and drive.

STFU.
That was rude. He or she has every right to debate without being treated like that.

No he doesn't.

Yes he does. No one deserves to be treated like that. Just because you can't debate doesn't mean that you can be a you know what to people.

go back to sleep MOM
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.