67
submitted 4 months ago by TehBamski@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Nemo@midwest.social 16 points 4 months ago

Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:

Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you're an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 36 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they're developing, not after.

And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If I can't vote until I'm 25 then I don't want to be paying tax until I'm 25.

No taxation without representation.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.

If you're not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they're 25 you'd better provide free transportation as well.

Since that's not about to happen, leave it as it is.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

provide free transportation

I'm totally on board with this.

[-] frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 months ago

If only our public transportation infrastructure didn't look like a great big duffel bag of shit

[-] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren't mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being "developed".

Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.

Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.

The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.

However, for voting or joining the army that's when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago

I don't follow your argument about sex ed and consent.

Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.

As to driving, most people shouldn't be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.

[-] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I agree, the sooner the better.

Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.

But what's the point of raising the age of consent?

My point is there isn't any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.

Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it's because sex ed wasn't done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.

For driving, I would agree in general we aren't good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn't easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn't really the topic though...

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

The post topic is "hot takes", so my "always curtail driving" position is technically on-topic for the larger thread. ;]

[-] Xer0@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 months ago

Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk

lmfao

[-] folkrav@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago

Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…

[-] Xer0@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Ok, in that case I totally agree. But going into detail about actual sex doesn't seem like a great idea that early.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

There's more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.

We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago

Only because you think sex is dirty, because you were stigmatized against talking about it at that age.

[-] Xer0@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Of course I don't think that, it's one of the most natural fucking things in the world. I just think for young children, especially ones who just learned how to talk, there's things they definitely DON'T need to know yet.

[-] folkrav@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Who said this is what sex ed is about?

[-] corroded@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from "adulthood" by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn't they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I've been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you'd be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I think you'd be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

I'm guessing their position is very much "oh they still need to work and pay taxes...and they shouldn't expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so...but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well".

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago

Don't speak for me, thanks.

My position is "let kids be kids" or maybe more like "let students be students". We expect a college degree for most jobs these days, so if it's a requirement let's, as a society, act like it and prioritize their potential for growth while they have it.

[-] probableprotogen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago
[-] Nemo@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

That was the assignment!

[-] Bronzie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

Interesting, but don't you think it would cause issues as well?

We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I've ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?

Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.

I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don't think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.

[-] Bronzie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.

You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.

I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 4 months ago

Uhhh.

Driving shouldn't be at 25, nor marriage.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

Any higher on marriage would be antinatalist, but I'm willing to go higher on driving for sure.

[-] fixmycode@feddit.cl 2 points 4 months ago

hot take about the hot take: it's about marriage, not about having babies.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago

That would just screw over young people

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

Same for all laws requiring X age.

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
67 points (92.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43849 readers
947 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS