Re: Will girllovers ever be accepted?

You know that's bullshit. My proposed system recognizes the individual needs and limitations of kids far more than your blanket liberation does. Democracies are not limitless or unproblematic, Dissident. All forms of gov't have inherent limitations.

Democracies are supposed to provide the greatest degree of personal freedom possible, with legal intervention only to the extent that people are prevented from inflicting demonstrable and empirically observable harm on others or infringing upon the democratic rights of others. Anything beyond that, and we are inexorably headed towards a police state, or something close to one. Democracies aren't entirely unproblematic, but as the saying goes, "democracy is the worst type of system except for all the other ones." Also, "needs" have to be self-defined, not defined by others, or you end up with laws that serve custom over and above people.

Right, which is why neither children nor you are, say, allowed to work on a nuclear reactor. Your rights aren't without limitations either. Nor are mine or anyone else's. You can earn the right to work on nuclear reactor, but that's far different from having a system in which you are granted the right simply because you exist.

You misunderstand my position, as well as the entire point of the pro-choice stance. There is a huge difference between having a license to work on highly dangerous tasks that may endanger the lives of many people if done incorrectly--such as working on a nuclear reactor or driving--and having the right to make personal choices that impact only on yourself. You make a major mistake by conflating these two things.

Well then, why don't you tell me exactly what the "reasonable age of cognizance" is. Pinpoint it exactly for me, will you? Then we'll talk.

Reasonable cognizance can easily be observed. The moment a child displays interest in participating in the democratic process, they should be granted the training and right to do so. Kids as young as six have demonstrated this level of cognizance.

I ignore nothing. I frequently post articles here and at DU about the accomplishments of minors who have defied expectations, and I'm very proud of them for that. I fully acknowledge and even trumpet the fact that some kids are more than capable of handling themselves in an adult arena. But it's a grave mistake to stretch that argument to all kids of all ages, intellectual and social capabilities.

It can be cogently argued that it's a grave mistake to stretch that argument to all adults of all ages too, yet we always give adults the benefit of the doubt and assume their basic competency in making their own decisions regarding personal matters even if they routinely make horrendous mistakes. And when adults accomplish great things, we do not consider them prodigies or "exceptions to the rule" even though the great majority of adults never accomplish anything particularly noteworthy and regularly mess up spectacultarly. Yet adults have ample opportunities to accomplish great things; kids are generally denied these opportunities, yet many still manage to accomplish truly great things despite this fact.

I like Epstein and agree with him in large part that adolescence is a stupid and mostly unnecessary distinction. I haven't read Teen 2.0 yet, but I'd like to. I have a long backlog of books I need/want to read, and unfortunately that one's far down on the list. I do NOT often hear you or others talk about kids being judged on individual merits; what I usually hear are statements of blanket liberation. If your system is more like the one I propose, then I can support it. But I don't recall you talking about such a system.

I have talked about such a system often enough, and others regularly make comments regarding the treatment of people according to their individual merits. Some people do not support the test solution, including many youth libbers who are NOT MAAs/MAPs, because they will mention that adults who are often incompetent are not required to take tests and are usually always given the benefit of the doubt in being competent enough to make decisions regarding how to run their personal lives. I support the test solution for the immediate future because I believe it will be far better than the situation we have now, it will offer any reasonably competent youths many opportunities they do not have in today's society, and it will give these emancipated youths ample opportunities to prove the degree of competence that typical young people do possess. After awhile, it may lead to the diminishment or altogether abolishment of the test requirement. We will have to see.

But in my system you would have to earn you rights regardless of age, and you couldn't have them until you earned them. As I said, I don't believe rights are inherent; they are a gift of the enlightened system in which we live. If you don't have a modicum of understanding about how the gov't works, you shouldn't be able to vote, whether you're 10, 30 or 50.

Good luck getting the above system accepted! lol I'll actually back you up on it, just to piss off all the adults who want these rights guaranteed to them regardless of lack of competency but are quick to deny these rights to younger people on a blanket basis. If your above system was instituted, however, many people would be unable to make personal choices, and everyone would have to earn the right to do simple things like consent to sex, etc. That is why I believe personal choices should not be regulated by the government. As for voting, there are many youth libbers (including myself) who often argue that voting rights should be one of those guaranteed rights for many reasons, and I'll be glad to share them with you if you would like.