|
Post by Rook on Jan 28, 2010 22:02:09 GMT -5
Rachel, a little of both, but mostly the latter. Obviously kids are going to fool around at a variety of ages, but I think 16 is a safe median age in which to make an acceptable benchmark. As a means of regulating when pornography is legal, especially as a participant, this age limit works just as well. Also the 'wiggle room' exception that allows a two or three year leeway between someone under the age and someone over the age would solve the issue of promiscuous 14 year olds. I highly doubt too many 17 year olds are interested in a 14 year old...boys and girls barely look different at 14. As much as I'm all right with people making their own choices I think 14 or 15 is a little young to blanket condone sexual activity.
Marriage, that's the one I completely forgot about! Thanks! I think that the legal age to marry should be identical to the legal age to consent to sexual activity or the age of adulthood, which is the age when you're legally allowed to sign contract. Both limits have their obvious reasoning.
Again, I agree with Her Majesty's opinion regarding alcohol. The consumption, under the supervision of an adult, should be allowed at any age. The purchase of alcohol or the unsupervised consumption under the age decided upon should be illegal. That category should be revised to be specify as such.
Having lived in a society where the legal age to drink is 21 I have to admit that it's a ridiculous age. I was drinking regularly after eighteen, most of the people I knew underage got someone overage to buy for them. Same thing with tobacco. Making it 21 would be a waste of money and time on behalf of law enforcement. Just considering my social circles since high school I've always been friends with someone, through DeMolay, 4-H or work that was old enough and eager enough to get me booze or smokes. Gelare is right, education is the answer, not punishment.
As regards to work, I can vaguely recall being twelve and fourteen and never can I remember being interested in working. I agree with permitting part time work for kids 14 or 15, but 12 is really young to work for an establishment. Perhaps if there's work at home an active kid of twelve is looking to do they should take it up with their parents, but 12 years olds in the workplace is far too young for my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rachel on Jan 29, 2010 12:36:32 GMT -5
As far as the minimum work age goes, by 12, I was going stir-crazy at home, and spending every free minute trying to find a way to make a few extra dollars. I remember being very frustrated that I had to wait until I was 14 to get a worker's permit. By 14, I didn't need one because I was already being paid under the table to keep the neighbor's house.
Frankly, I was lucky to live in one of the safest cities in the country, I would be uncomfortable with my children roaming the neighborhood asking the neighbors for spare chores to do for a few dollars.
I feel relatively certain that child/adolescent prostitution would not be such an issue in some places if those children had another opportunity for income. Not everyone has the good fortune to be born to a safely middle-class suburbanite family. While I agree that an adolescent child should first consult their parents regarding extra pocket money, it will not always be available.
There's really no harm in letting an older child be a cashier or have a reception position. I do believe that there should be relatively strict regulations about what sort of work children at various ages can or cannot do.
I'm not saying that at 12 EVERY child should have a job. It's unnecessary. But I do believe that the opportunity should be there. Also, as I said, the work permit would need to be signed by parents/legal guardians, as well as school administrators. If the parents think it's a bad idea, they still have control over their child. If the student's grades and performance in school begin to suffer, then the school also has the right to revoke the worker's permit until the student's grades come back up.
I'm feeling a bit scattered, I hope that came across clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jan 29, 2010 13:06:21 GMT -5
I don't have statistics but I don't believe there's a child prostitute out there who found the job their selves. Their parents put them up to it so that the parents could make the money, and the money from whoring out your kids is far better than getting them a receptionist or collating job. Parents like that, that desperate or deranged, will likely take the same route if a 12 year old is allowed a work permit or not. For instance, once that kid turns 16 do they send them to the nearest supermarket instead because now they can get a real job? I don't think so.
If you allow children of 12 to work some parents will make them do so. Especially in those not so coosh areas as you described. Desperate parents and unscrupulous employers could very easily take advantage of being able to get cheap labor at 12. There are already problems with parents pulling kids out of school at 15 and 16 to work in poorer neighborhoods of LA, what will that do to the population's education if they could start pulling them at 14 or 12? Most of these kids aren't supposed to be pulled, but they live in such an area where no one cares and the police don't go. It's the whole give an inch take a mile paradox. There will be people who don't follow the rules, but are less likely to break the rule extremely. If the age to work is 15 they may pull their kid from school, whether the kid likes it or not, to work so they all can survive. To pull a kid at 13 is breaking two laws instead of one. Make the legal age to work 12 and you just make it easier for them. It's a slippery slope as I see it. I can live with the 13 year old bored out of their mind until they are 14 or 15.
I wouldn't want to put a 12 year old on my phones. I'm not sure they could handle the negative customers or multitasking. The traditional kids jobs: paper route, lemonade stand, mowing lawns, bake sales as cliche and stereotypical as that may sound are safe. They are an educational experience with the reward of money more than a job. They are almost like a job activity in a role play experience. If you wanted to set up a job program for youths that teaches and employs, something through school and churches and other 'safe' organizations I could see that, and agree with it. But having a 12 year old sorting kids meals at a McDonalds or filing in the office is counter productive.
I am eager to see what a third party says, since we're at loggerheads and I don't see one of us convincing the other anytime soon.
Though one thing that doesn't happen in America that you brought up and I really like is the idea that the school can revoke a work permit for poor attendance or grades. There is a great disconnect between parents and kids about grades, I know there was with me. I worked as hard as I could to forge or evade having to show my mother my actual grades. Why I didn't spend that energy doing the work I can't tell you, but I know I wasn't alone. Having it be an agreement between school, parents, child/worker and employment is good. And should be at 14 or 15. Unless it's the youth work program I touched upon.
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rachel on Jan 29, 2010 13:32:00 GMT -5
First of all, I don't believe that it's generally parents putting their children out for prostitution. I do think that, yes, some of the time that is the case, but I think that statistics will likely show (though I have not looked them up) that the majority of under age prostitutes out there were either set to work by guardians who are not their parents, or were runaways. I can see, as a runaway, easily being lured in by the promise of an "easy" job, when no others seem available. Lowering the legal work age would ensure that the younger runaways who have found themselves temporarily in a safe place would have the opportunity to stay there, or find a more permanent place. It would give them the fair opportunity to carve a life out for themselves.
Second of all, I do not believe that traditional kid's pocket money makers such as paper routes, lemonade stands or lawn mowing are safe in today's world. For one thing, (at least here in California) it's unlikely that your average adolescent will even be able to find a job mowing lawns, when there is a proliferation of illegal immigrants to do it. I've drifted slightly from my point, but any psycho could easily take a kid off a paper route or from their lemonade stand. Adolescents would be far more safe under the watchful eyes of an employer.
I don't disagree that an organization might be put into use to help find kids a safe way to make some pocket money. But how can such organizations be established if it's illegal for their wards to work? For these organizations to form, they would have to break the law, or be an exception to it. Either is unsavory.
I do think, though, that those who might take advantage of a younger legal work force are likely already doing so illegally. To make it legal makes it easier to regulate. And yes, some parents might make a child work to help support the family, but again, it's probably already happening illegally. When you're in need, you're in need. And that's not going to change according to legality.
I agree that your average bored 13 year old likely doesn't need a job, but what about those who are not average? Are you going to deny them the chance to empower themselves and take control of their lives simply because you think their place is doing paper routes and lemonade stands? Those in average suburban situations are going to have a hard time finding work anyway. Who wants to hire a 12 year old? There are many positions a needy inner-city adolescent may find, though, some more savory than others. Wouldn't it be better to encourage the naive mind of the youth to take the legal route? Don't you think it's easier for a youth to fall into prostitution when ALL of their endeavors are illegal, and there are those who would take advantage of them snapping at their heels?
Allowing the underprivileged children of our nation to work allows them the protection of the government, because, whether it's legal or not, they're going to find a way to get what they need.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Feb 1, 2010 15:20:28 GMT -5
I stand by that we do not see equally on this and are in no position to dissuade the other's opinion. I would appreciate a third party's input.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Feb 2, 2010 0:10:32 GMT -5
Okay, 1) It depends on the type of person a parent is. There are types who'd do anything to protect their kids, the one's who let the kids do what ever they like because they don't care, and then there's the type who feels the kids owe them because they brought the kid into this world. The last type are the ones who'd protitute their kids out. 2) I agree and disagree with both of you. The 'traditional' jobs are safer - under the watch of a parent or in a large, organised group. 3) I think that it's unhealthy for kids to start getting shoved into the adult life labels before they're even teens. Those years are the ones that count for learning social intereaction skills.
However, the idea of the school being able to revoke the working permit in the event of falling grades has merit.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jan 3, 2011 8:00:28 GMT -5
So, to ressurect, the major impass has been on the age. Perhaps a way to come to a compromise would be to create a tiered work availability. There are certain jobs that a 12 year old is incapable of performing, or even if some are the majority aren't, or even if they are a child that young has no place in such an environment. Have jobs available for younger children, and as they grow older their work permits allows them access to a wider variety of jobs, until they are of age and then they are allowed the gambit of the work force.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 10, 2011 2:45:32 GMT -5
REBOOT
This discussion, by its very nature, has become three distinct sub-discussions, namely vehicle operation, substance use and employment. The discussion ground to a standstill long ago. I have here a proposal listing my reasons for each decision and acknowledgement of previous discussion on the topic. Any further discussion or opinion is welcome. If there is no more debate, the proposal will become law.
Age of adulthood: 18 When designing public policy it is vital to take into account the full spectrum of people. Maturity varies greatly by social status, circumstance, gender, race, etc. but 18 is a widely accepted, time honored benchmark of adulthood in the modern world. As the age of adulthood, it is the maximum age that can be imposed upon any activity.
-Operation of automobiles and motorcycles: 17 -Limited operation of automobiles and motorcycles (learner’s permit): 15 Some may feel that 17 years old is still too young to drive a car or motorcycle responsibly. From my experience as a teenager and young adult I did not stop driving like an idiot until I was well past 20. Not only that, but even now I find myself driving recklessly without thinking about it. And I am by no means the worst specimen of an irresponsible driver. For that reason I don’t believe that raising the age to drive too far is going to make that much of a difference. What I can see doing some good is that extra year of observed driving to create good habits under responsible supervision.
-Operation of motorized aquatic vehicles: 16 (under supervision, no minimum age) There’s almost no reason to restrict the operation of rowboats, sailboats and the like. However, motorized aquatic vehicles such as powerboats and jet-skis can be very dangerous. But, because of the room for error on the water is much higher in comparison to the close quarters on the roads, as long as there’s supervision, there is no need to limit the operation of said vehicles by minors. -Operation of motorized aerial vehicles: Adulthood -Limited operation of motorized aerial vehicles (learner’s permit): 15 Though flying a plane can be, statistically, safer than driving a car there are many added complications to flying a plane. The difference of a year may not make a difference in the technical ability to handle aircraft. The reason for waiting until adulthood has to do with those extra necessities such as coordinating take-off and landing as well as registering flight plans and operating navigational equipment. These are circumstances and protocols that do not exist on the roads. Being an adult implies the ability to accept responsibility for these added situations. Said responsibility is the burden of the adult in a permitted piloting situation.
-Purchase and unsupervised use of alcohol and tobacco: Adulthood Under parental supervision, there is no minimum age for the use and consumption of controlled substances. Responsibility for the moderation and health of the minor is the burden of the parent. Regardless of if the parent delegates the responsibility to family or friends, any negative repercussion of a minor’s use of controlled substances is on the head of the parent. The age restrictions refer to the purchase and unsupervised use and consumption.
-Consent to sexual activity: 16 There was a bit of debate about going lower than 16. A brilliant point was brought up that can be summed up as ‘is the minimum age law designed to stop pedophilia or hassle horny teens?’ Since the purpose of the minimum age is, indeed, to curb pedophilia I am hesitent to go any lower on the age. Instead this minimum age carries with it the 3 year rule, which stipulates that anyone within three years of someone under the age of consent is not committing statutory rape. That provision allows us to set an age of consent high enough to dissuade pedophilia without making natural teenage biology illegal.
-Consent to marry: Adulthood -Consent to marry with parental consent: 16 Marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. Though the rules on how this contract, and the duration of said contract, are fare less stringent in Uantir than it is in many other countries, in the end only adults can sign legal contracts. With parental consent marriage is allowed at the age of sexual consent.
-Gambling: Adulthood
-Legal full time employment: Adulthood This was the most largely contested aspect of the minimum ages proposal. The sheer number of opinions and potential circumstances involved in employment of minors is dizzying and frustrating. To help make it a bit saner, I propose that there be no minimum age to part time employment with parental consent. In this way parental opinion, individual child desire and the market will self regulate the system. A minor’s school must sign off on issuing the permit and reserves the right to revoke the permit for poor grades.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Mar 10, 2011 22:00:57 GMT -5
I agree with all points.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 11, 2011 1:36:25 GMT -5
That's a relief. We're very close to ratifying our first S.O.P. discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Queen Rachel on Mar 15, 2011 14:36:00 GMT -5
I only have a few places here that I disagree. The first one is for the operation of motorized aerial vehicles. I do not feel that there should be a minimum age for supervised operation of such vehicles. Flight appeals to many basic human wishes and fears, and as such, I think we perceive it as being more dangerous than it is. I do not think that it is any more dangerous to allow a minor to operate an aerial vehicle under supervision than it is to allow a minor to operate an aquatic vehicle under supervision, provided that adult supervisor is licensed and capable, and able to take over at any time. I do not disagree that people should not be licensed for the operation of aerial vehicles before adulthood.
The other thing is back to the age-to-work debate. Though I more or less agree with His Majesty's compromise, I feel that it would be prudent to require the school to sign off on underage worker's permits, since otherwise it is unreasonable to allow the school to revoke such a permit, when they may or may not even be aware that it exists. In the eyes of the law, I think that for minors, education should always come before employment.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 16, 2011 7:24:41 GMT -5
Having never actually flown, but having read quite a bit about it in high school, I have to disagree. Flying is rather easy. Mistakes in the air have miles and miles of wiggle room before they become a big issue. You don't actually crash until you hit the ground, and you have all that time in-between to fix the situation. The problem is take off, landing, navigation and radio communication. Most plane crashes happen at takeoff and landing or involve navigation / instrumentation error over long flights. When you're 50 feet off the ground, small errors can become catastrophic accidents. When you've gone 700 miles through dense fog on your instruments and they are a degree off, who knows what you're flying into.
There's a misunderstanding as to what is implied by the title aerial vehicle operation. What I'm referring to is the authorization to log flight plans, coordinate with aircraft control, take off and land. When you're cruising there's nothing to it, and no method of enforcement. There are no air marshals flying around in strike helicopters eager to pull you over for flying like a twelve year old. I'm not sure how that would even work, it's silly. What you do once you're up in the air is your business. If you let your child play at banking left and right for a while no one will know or care. You won’t get a ticket when he brags about it at school. But being permitted to do the complicated pre and post cruising activities, so that they can build the skills and gain familiarity with the systems under a knowledgeable instructor or guardian, should be reserved for when they are older.
-
It doesn't make much sense to let some kid get a permit on their own when they're failing classes only to have it revokes a month later when the school finally finds out. Thanks for catching that.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 21, 2011 8:10:00 GMT -5
I've talked with Her Majesty off board about this, and we've come to loggerheads again. Instead of risking this SOP die again, I am going to call out for one last weigh in on the final issue: should there me a minimum age to fly a plane with a permit, or should it be like a boat where you can operate it at any age unless you're under parental supervision.
Current arguments for permited age: In regards to take off and landing, where the margin of error is 50 feet, the response time to correct mistakes is instantaneous and the crash zones are airports and cities someone with no or anecdotal instruction on operations and unproven maturity cannot be trusted to perform safely. There's a reason to fly a plane you need hundreds of hours of instructed time to get a permit. In contrast, you need three days of driver's training to get a driver's permit.
Arguments against permitted age: A licensed adult would be required to be at the controls to react to any problems. Aircraft without a co-pilot's control would not be allowed to be piloted by anyone without a license.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Mar 27, 2011 8:20:21 GMT -5
I think that there should always be a licensed pilot in the cockpit until the person applying for a permit is capable of proving certain needed abilities (landing, taking off, navigating, etc) and a certain number of flying hours.
For example (I know this is cars, but I've never flown before) In Australia, To be able to get your drivers license, you must A- clock up 50 hours of daylight driving, and 25 hours of night time driving and B- either pass a Vehicle On Road Test OR go out with a professional driving instructor and have them sign off in the same log book that the 75 hours go into. The problem with the VORT - Fail more then 5% and the license is not granted. That's my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 27, 2011 8:43:49 GMT -5
So you don't think there needs to be a minimum age to fly as long as a licenced pilot is supervising?
|
|