• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it time we change the federal age of adulthood?

Should the definition of minor be changed federally?


  • Total voters
    17
Well, label me impressed, then. I actually find myself agreeing entirely with what you've done -- I'd be hard pressed to come up with a better alternative for that particular situation. However, what I don't understand is the correlation between useless excursions (field trips) and poor teaching venues, and the bleeding-heart liberal douchebags. I don't see why bleeding-heart liberal douchebags would be any more likely to send their students on useless excursions, nor why they'd be less likely to pay attention to the individual student's needs. I suppose I could make the connexion between most excursions coming from the English and Social Science faculties, but from the limited interaction we've had thus far, I'm inclined to think that you're: A, fully aware of the existence of useless Science faculty excursions, and B, cognisant of the paramount importance of the studies of history and language. Thus, your reason isn't apparent to me -- so please explain it.


from my limited personal experience (I only taught at 2 different schools, 3 if you count the semester of student teaching) I have found that math and science teachers tend to be more conservative with the english, history, drama, social sciences, etc teachers tend to be more liberal. The school board members are, for the most part former teachers and they tend to be those with liberal leanings, thus their focus is more on the "liberal artsy" stuff and less on the basics math, science, reading.

were I not an educated person, I wouldn't give a damn whether the school taught my kids the correct usage of condoms, or that homosexuality was a valid alternative lifestyle, etc. I could teach them that at home. what I could not teach them at home is science, math, reading, etc.

spend the school day teaching the kids academics and let their parents teach them all the life lesson/values stuff at home.
 
from my limited personal experience (I only taught at 2 different schools, 3 if you count the semester of student teaching) I have found that math and science teachers tend to be more conservative with the english, history, drama, social sciences, etc teachers tend to be more liberal. The school board members are, for the most part former teachers and they tend to be those with liberal leanings, thus their focus is more on the "liberal artsy" stuff and less on the basics math, science, reading.

were I not an educated person, I wouldn't give a damn whether the school taught my kids the correct usage of condoms, or that homosexuality was a valid alternative lifestyle, etc. I could teach them that at home. what I could not teach them at home is science, math, reading, etc.

spend the school day teaching the kids academics and let their parents teach them all the life lesson/values stuff at home.

Well, again, label me impressed. I agree with your assessment yet again -- I can't find a single flaw in your rationale for homeschooling the kids. Still, I have to wonder, in such a math-science oriented home -- how do you allow them to experience the drama, art, etc., venues of schooling that, for many people (myself included) were rather useless, but for some take them down a path that leads them to find their "calling" in life, so to speak? How do you decide which histories and social sciences, or which foreign languages to teach them? Don't get me wrong -- you seem like an educated man, and your wife seems an educated woman, and I've no doubt you've the knowledge to teach them plenty of those subjects -- but say they wanted to learn Russian history, or Latin American history, or learn German (assuming you don't speak German) as their foreign language? Out of curiosity, how do you deal with that?
 
Yes, the age of adulthood must be raise up because after liberal "education" the children are five times more stupid as thirty years ago.
 
Well, again, label me impressed. I agree with your assessment yet again -- I can't find a single flaw in your rationale for homeschooling the kids. Still, I have to wonder, in such a math-science oriented home -- how do you allow them to experience the drama, art, etc., venues of schooling that, for many people (myself included) were rather useless, but for some take them down a path that leads them to find their "calling" in life, so to speak? How do you decide which histories and social sciences, or which foreign languages to teach them? Don't get me wrong -- you seem like an educated man, and your wife seems an educated woman, and I've no doubt you've the knowledge to teach them plenty of those subjects -- but say they wanted to learn Russian history, or Latin American history, or learn German (assuming you don't speak German) as their foreign language? Out of curiosity, how do you deal with that?

we attend plays and go to museums on the weekends, not during the school week. we basically mirror the public school as far as the history and social sciences go. my brother still teaches public school and each year he lets me "borrow" a set of the current textbooks. I have access to rosetta stone through the national guard so, currently, both kids are learning spanish. my daughter is getting her degree in Russian, so if they ever have an interest there she can help. Also, one of my good friend's wife is from Russia so we get a lot of the cultural stuff from talking/visiting with them.
 
I was partially home-schooled, I would say I received a quality education.
 
I was partially home-schooled, I would say I received a quality education.

when done correctly, you will invaribly get a better education at home. public schools these days are nothing more than glorified daycare centers. I would wager that for the last 3-4 years I taught, at least 75% of my time was spent dealing with discipline problems and administrative bull**** instead of actually teaching.

now, there are those nutters that pull their kids from public school because they are religious zealots and then don't teach them dick at home. I feel sorry for those kids.
 
I don't like the idea of age-based adulthood at all. People don't all mature at the some rate. I know some people who are nowhere near mature enough for adulthood at 21 and others who are ready at 16. I would prefer a system where maturity is tested to allow access to 'adult' rights (i.e. driving, owning a gun, owning property, joining the military, drinking, gambling, etc.). I realize this is unrealistic though, so I'm okay leaving it at 18 and lowering the drinking age.
 
when done correctly, you will invariably get a better education at home. public schools these days are nothing more than glorified daycare centers. I would wager that for the last 3-4 years I taught, at least 75% of my time was spent dealing with discipline problems and administrative bull**** instead of actually teaching.

now, there are those nutters that pull their kids from public school because they are religious zealots and then don't teach them dick at home. I feel sorry for those kids.
The people, if they care about their children, will do something about this.
I say that we throw all the kids who are undisciplined in prison, now, along with the "parents".
Those remaining can then be taught to be production citizens,.
Think, I am kidding ?
no
I am just saving time and trouble ...this alternative must be presented to the undisciplined parents and they must make a decision.
 
The people, if they care about their children, will do something about this.
I say that we throw all the kids who are undisciplined in prison, now, along with the "parents".
Those remaining can then be taught to be production citizens,.
Think, I am kidding ?
no
I am just saving time and trouble ...this alternative must be presented to the undisciplined parents and they must make a decision.


to hell with prison, let's just execute them. poison them with some nasty crap and then blame it on some crap that was imported from China.
 
I don't like the idea of age-based adulthood at all. People don't all mature at the some rate. I know some people who are nowhere near mature enough for adulthood at 21 and others who are ready at 16. I would prefer a system where maturity is tested to allow access to 'adult' rights (i.e. driving, owning a gun, owning property, joining the military, drinking, gambling, etc.). I realize this is unrealistic though, so I'm okay leaving it at 18 and lowering the drinking age.
Some interesting and innovative ideas.
But why "unrealistic" ?
 
Some interesting and innovative ideas.
But why "unrealistic" ?

because if you require a test, you will be depriving "some" people of their rights...and, god forbid, we step on anyone's rights to be a retard.
 
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You think every bad kid comes from bad parenting only?

Common knowledge for most : "bad" kids come from poor parenting....
Some bad kids come from "suspect" parenting.
Society that cares not is a contributing factor.
 
one of the main reasons my kids are home schooled. they learn what I want them to and not what some bleeding heart, liberal douchebag down at the local school board wants them to.
I feel sorry for your children.
And I am one of the liberal douchebags.
And, remember this, all children are "home schooled", even when parents try to evade this responsibility. The outcomes are in prison, or dead.
 
because if you require a test, you will be depriving "some" people of their rights...and, god forbid, we step on anyone's rights to be a retard.
Rights can be(??) and/or should be removed when people are not responsible.....The "test" for this, however, is difficult.
Yes, people do have the right to be stupid, I see it all the time, If I am not careful, I can be the "seen" one.
 
Realistically.... well what we have right now is a mess.

Age of consent in some states is 16... I think 14 in at least one state.
Drinking age almost everywhere is 21.

So, you can have sex at 16, vote or join the military or get married at 18, drink at 21.

BUT the odds are most young people are still somewhat dependent on their parents until they are 21 or 22... in many cases the parents are paying some or all of their college costs. BUT then you have others that are paying their own way, or went straight to work, or joined the military, or got married, or whatever.

I don't think raising the age of majority is the way to go. If you make it 21, then the parent is still responsible for the upkeep and behavior of a person who might be in the Marines, or working full time, or married with children.... wtf?? OR, a slacker laying around at home refusing to do anything...

Lowering it isn't much of an option. I think lowering it would cause the dropout rate to rise, which would cause the number of people in poverty and/or on Welfare to rise, increasing the burden on society.

Either leave it alone, or let "majority" be dependent on fulfilling certain conditions indicating that one is mature enough to live one's own life independently.
 
Adulthood should be lowered so these little snot-nosed bastards can get off their texting asses and get to WORK!
 
Currently legal adulthood federally is skewed, with an individual being defined as a minor if they are under 18 thus an adult when over 18. However there are a few potential issues with this law. First and foremost is the inconsistency of its application on a federal level, with the term "minor" still being used with regards to individuals under 21 for alcohol but being a legally seperate term from the status of a "minor" with regards to adult status.

Not to mention, the possibility of children as young as twelve being eligible to be "tried as an adult" for any crimes they've committed. If they're old enough to take on an adult's moral responsibility for their actions and old enough to suffer an adult's punishment, they are adults and should be legally recognized as such. I find it baffling that some people consider a fifteen year old to be incapable of making their own decisions, and yet still consider sentencing that same fifteen year old to life in prison to be acceptable.

Second, is whether or not with todays culture 18 is still a reasonable age to determine an individual as an "adult".

I don't believe it was ever reasonable.

This is a far reaching matter. Access to certain items (Such as cigerettes), entrance into the military and potential for the draft, the ability to vote, etc are all related to the federal definition of adulthood. What is your thoughts? Under the law, should we change the definition of a minor and adult in some way to either lower it or raise it? For the sake of this conversation and attempting NOT to turn this into a pedophile issue, lets cap the "lowering" it to 16 years of age at most since that is the lowest any individual state within the US has it set at.

I don't like the idea of age-based adulthood at all. People don't all mature at the some rate. I know some people who are nowhere near mature enough for adulthood at 21 and others who are ready at 16. I would prefer a system where maturity is tested to allow access to 'adult' rights (i.e. driving, owning a gun, owning property, joining the military, drinking, gambling, etc.). I realize this is unrealistic though, so I'm okay leaving it at 18 and lowering the drinking age.

I'm with molten_dragon that the determination of adulthood should not lie in calendar years, but in exhibiting adult capacity. It's not clear from his post whether or not he would agree with me, but one thing I would insist upon is that "adult" always equals "adult". All of these bizarre cases in which someone is treated as partially a child need to go away.

I think changing the age to 19 would be a fair compromise. It gives the kids an extra year of maturity before they are thrust into the "real world" and it would not be that much of an extra burden on the families. hell, many parents support their kids until they are 19-20 already. just make the legal age 19 across the board voting, drinking, smoking, military service, etc.

Many parents support their children until they're well past any reasonable age of adulthood. I think raising the age of adulthood any further would be a mistake, and that it would lead not to more mature adults entering the "real world" so much as it would result in children staying children for an extra year-- and then we'll be arguing over whether or not we should raise it even further in the future.
 
One thing I think should be raised is the age to enlist in the armed forces. I saw a lot of kids who really didn't know anything about the outside world figure they didn't stand a chance in the real world or college, so they joined the military. They never tried to be independent or figure out the vagaries of the job market or get their own place or anything, they just went from one place that provided for their basic needs (the family) to another (the military). I think they missed out on an important part of their life in some ways. Not to mention, I'm highly doubtful that an 18 year old who just got out of high school really realizes what he's getting into when he signs up to serve in Afghanistan- especially with the sheer amount of BS recruiters will shovel.
 
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You think every bad kid comes from bad parenting only?

I never said only, but bad parenting is certainly a factor.
 
I'm with molten_dragon that the determination of adulthood should not lie in calendar years, but in exhibiting adult capacity. It's not clear from his post whether or not he would agree with me, but one thing I would insist upon is that "adult" always equals "adult". All of these bizarre cases in which someone is treated as partially a child need to go away..

Not sure if I agree with that or not. I think it would be quite difficult to develop a system of measuring or determining whether someone is mature enough to be an adult in all ways. If such a method could be determined I wouldn't be against it, I just think it would be easier to test for maturity relating to various rights given to adults and dole them out piecemeal. I can see how that has the potential to cause problems though.
 
Back
Top Bottom