• 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!

Should Society Eliminate Age of Majority?

Should society eliminate age of majority?

  • Yes, maturity is qualitative, not quantitative.

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Yes, there are better ways to judge maturity.

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • No, society can't judge maturity better.

    Votes: 12 63.2%

  • No, maturity is quantitative, not qualitative.

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Total voters
    19
Daktoria

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Many people are mature beyond their years, and others never grow up.

Therefore, should society eliminate age of majority, and instead, require people to graduate a philosophical rite of passage before participating in adult activities?
 
It's obvious that age is a meaningless qualifier for maturity. Quantifying every aspect of society for legal purposes is murdering our ability to think for ourselves.

The more time goes on the more I wonder if the right side won the Civil War. (cue hysterical cries that I support slavery)
 
Perhaps we should just create a new "Bureau of Sophomoric Questions" and be done with it.
 
ChuckBerry said:
It's obvious that age is a meaningless qualifier for maturity. Quantifying every aspect of society for legal purposes is murdering our ability to think for ourselves.

The more time goes on the more I wonder if the right side won the Civil War. (cue hysterical cries that I support slavery)
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, but from a practical legal point of view, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do you have a better alternative?
 
Daktoria said:
Many people are mature beyond their years, and others never grow up.

Therefore, should society eliminate age of majority, and instead, require people to graduate a philosophical rite of passage before participating in adult activities?
Click to expand...

NO! Hell No! Who decides what "behavior" or "philosophical leaning" is appropriate? It sounds like a great way to create indoctrination camps.
 
Daktoria said:
Many people are mature beyond their years, and others never grow up.

Therefore, should society eliminate age of majority, and instead, require people to graduate a philosophical rite of passage before participating in adult activities?
Click to expand...

So now you are advocating totalitarian communism.
 
ksu_aviator said:
NO! Hell No! Who decides what "behavior" or "philosophical leaning" is appropriate? It sounds like a great way to create indoctrination camps.
Click to expand...

Is that sarcasm?
 
joko104 said:
So now you are advocating totalitarian communism.
Click to expand...

What I'm advocating is analytic jurisprudence where people are expected to prevent moral hazard and principal-agent conflict in their dealings of offer and acceptance.

No fraud, no provocation, no intimidation, duress, harassment, etc.
 
Daktoria said:
Is that sarcasm?
Click to expand...

No. In this age of manipulation, I could easily see someone trying to force their views onto young adults through this philosophical course you propose.
 
ksu_aviator said:
No. In this age of manipulation, I could easily see someone trying to force their views onto young adults through this philosophical course you propose.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, philosophy doesn't deal with tastes, so that's not possible...

...unless we're talking about pragmatism, but that's stupid. Pragmatism literally denies the fact-value dichotomy as if natural facts are valuable by intelligent design, and those with predestined callings can feel them.

No thanks.
 
I say leave the 16 year olds alone. They're ignorant, inexperienced, have absolutely no capacity to appreciate talent and they have algebra homework to do (if they're in the advanced class). They can't talk about anything except the Disney Channel and Twilight. What self-respecting person chases that?

Men who want HS girls are looking for an easy judge and someone they can easily dominate. They are not looking for a partner, teammate or anything of the sort. Basically, disgusting little men who think they have no alternative but to turn to children for validation.

The vast majority of people are finished (note: not "started") mental and physical puberty at 18. Anyone who wants to chase younger girls is a sick perv who should be jailed (probably permanently) for the good of society.
 
Last edited:
Daktoria said:
Thankfully, philosophy doesn't deal with tastes, so that's not possible...

...unless we're talking about pragmatism, but that's stupid. Pragmatism literally denies the fact-value dichotomy as if natural facts are valuable by intelligent design, and those with predestined callings can feel them.

No thanks.
Click to expand...

That doesn't negate the possibility of someone using your philosophical class for their own purposes.
 
ksu_aviator said:
That doesn't negate the possibility of someone using your philosophical class for their own purposes.
Click to expand...

How can someone use philosophy for special interests outside of pragmatism?
 
ecofarm said:
I say leave the 16 year olds alone. They're ignorant, inexperienced, have absolutely no capacity to appreciate talent and they have algebra homework to do (if they're in the advanced class). They can't talk about anything except the Disney Channel and Twilight. What self-respecting person chases that?

Men who want HS girls are looking for an easy judge and someone they can easily dominate. They are not looking for a partner, teammate or anything of the sort. Basically, disgusting little men who think they have no alternative but to turn to children for validation.

The vast majority of people are finished (note: not "started") mental and physical puberty at 18. Anyone who wants to chase younger girls is a sick perv who should be jailed (probably permanently) for the good of society.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about older people really. There are lots of 30, 40, 50+ year olds who don't think before they act beyond appeals to seniority.

Society should relegate them to childhood until they learn why things are important rather than doing things just because they like it.
 
Daktoria said:
What I'm advocating is analytic jurisprudence where people are expected to prevent moral hazard and principal-agent conflict in their dealings of offer and acceptance.

No fraud, no provocation, no intimidation, duress, harassment, etc.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I bet your just a wonderful romantic who's out to save those kids.
 
Daktoria said:
How can someone use philosophy for special interests outside of pragmatism?
Click to expand...

Who says they'd use philosophy? I said they'd use the class. Do you actually believe that because you use the word philosophy that that will stop people from deviating from your honorable intentions?
 
Daktoria said:
I was thinking about older people really. There are lots of 30, 40, 50+ year olds who don't think before they act beyond appeals to seniority.
Click to expand...

I'm calling BS. That would have been in the OP so as to dispel the creeps it gives.


should society eliminate age of majority
Click to expand...

That does NOT imply that the topic is people 50+, as the age of CONSENT has no affect on them. So why remove it for them?
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
Who says they'd use philosophy? I said they'd use the class. Do you actually believe that because you use the word philosophy that that will stop people from deviating from your honorable intentions?
Click to expand...

I don't see how people can qualify as philosophical while being dishonorable.

It's pretty easy to detect psychopaths. They make appeals to pragmatism in order to intimidate others to do their bidding.
 
ecofarm said:
Yeah, I bet your just a wonderful romantic who's out to save those kids.
Click to expand...

Considering I advocate family values so much in order to prevent parental negligence, your bet is right on the money.
 
Daktoria said:
Considering I advocate family values so much in order to prevent parental negligence, your bet is right on the money.
Click to expand...

I see, you just "love" the kids so much that you want the age of consent removed to protect them. That makes perfect sense.
 
Daktoria said:
It's pretty easy to detect psychopaths. They make appeals to pragmatism in order to intimidate others to do their bidding.
Click to expand...

Yes, pragmatic people, like the ones who say "no fkg children until they are at least 18" are usually psychopaths.
 
Daktoria said:
I don't see how people can qualify as philosophical while being dishonorable.

It's pretty easy to detect psychopaths. They make appeals to pragmatism in order to intimidate others to do their bidding.
Click to expand...

Uh...ya....that's a very naive approach. If you can't see how people can use something good for something bad, I can't help you.
 
ecofarm said:
I say leave the 16 year olds alone. They're ignorant, inexperienced, have absolutely no capacity to appreciate talent and they have algebra homework to do (if they're in the advanced class). .
Click to expand...

16 year olds taking algebra is considered advanced?

I wonder what that makes my son who just turned 12 a few weeks ago? He is taking algebra right now.
 
Gardener said:
I wonder what that makes my son who just turned 12 a few weeks ago? He is taking algebra right now.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should give him Dak's test and hook 'em up with a nice man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom