Justifiable discrimination?

[NightlyNews]

It's because of neurological and physical development issues including, but not limited to:

[ol]
Emotional maturity and self control.
Ability to process alcohol.
Ability to forward plan and foresee the consequences of actions.
[/ol]

Teenagers are not complete and will frequently, if left to their own devices, endanger their life and the lives of others through their inability to adequately understand how a situation really works. There are also things that an adult body can shrug off but that a teenage or younger body will be damaged by.

I'm sorry but 17 year old me could handle a hell of a lot more abuse than current me. I don't think anything about being older in age helps your body handle anything really.

The whole brain not being developed thing is a farce in that the brain just hasn't stagnated before your twenties. This is not the same as saying your brain isn't fully developed. But, I understand why some things should be limited by age because of maturity. But, if your talking about physical ability to handle, understand or deal with problems, I peaked at about 17.

I mean I can drink and smoke more, but thats because of a built up tolerance. Like if I hadn't done those when I was a teenager I would be as susceptible as most teenagers are.

 

[Cousin_IT]

Young people should be in school

 

[emeraldrafael]

Not really, if a five year old wanted to buy porn, would you let it?

...

I would, though I'd sound even creepier if I said why.

OT: I suppose so. Men and Women's restrooms are discrmination, though women of course get a pass, cause they can just knock or say they're allowed to go in because the women's restroom is full and they dont want to wait, which I've always thought was bull siht, cause i tried the same thing (I'm a guy) and was told I would be reported for sexual harassment if I didnt leave immediately.

 

[William MacKay]

It's because of neurological and physical development issues including, but not limited to:

[ol]
Emotional maturity and self control.
Ability to process alcohol.
Ability to forward plan and foresee the consequences of actions.
[/ol]

Teenagers are not complete and will frequently, if left to their own devices, endanger their life and the lives of others through their inability to adequately understand how a situation really works. There are also things that an adult body can shrug off but that a teenage or younger body will be damaged by.

adults can get liver diseases from alcohol, and some of them are completely irrational and ignore consequences, and assuming all teenagers are is discrimination. if there was a 14 year old who was entirely rational, and had a metabolism that could process alcohol at the same rate as an adult, would you give them alcohol in full knowledge of those facts? no, because theyre 14.
and i actually have a friend like that. we're a lot more cool with the whole 'letting minors drink alcohol in some circumstances' thing up here in scotland. im in my house, so legally i could get hammered right now.

 

[William MacKay]

adults can get liver diseases from alcohol, and some of them are completely irrational and ignore consequences, and assuming all teenagers are is discrimination. if there was a 14 year old who was entirely rational, and had a metabolism that could process alcohol at the same rate as an adult, would you give them alcohol in full knowledge of those facts? no, because theyre 14.
and i actually have a friend like that. we're a lot more cool with the whole 'letting minors drink alcohol in some circumstances' thing up here in scotland. im in my house, so legally i could get hammered right now.

OK, read my next post.

Also you always have to generalise at some point, in this case those outliers are so ridiculously small they can be ignored. The real world always has statistical aberrations; hell, there are people that like fucking stuffed toys!

i believe that we should generalise.
against everyone. nobody can handle the long term effects of booze, so fuck it. and cigarettes.

 

[Mogule]

Alright, fine. But like I said before. Did this case do anything for the freedom of minors? Did this change the game industry?

(Sorry for the subtle change of topic)

OT:
...umm...YEAH, what that guy said.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

It's far easier and much more efficient to govern by groups instead of individuals. Tell me, of all the people you know of that are less than 18 or 21 that aren't absolute cunts that couldn't make a good choice, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, if they gave it their best efforts. There are a lot of people that I can think of. It's those people that they're trying to educate and teach how to create their own morals and thoughts.

However race, disability and religion and the like have nothing to do with maturity.

 

[Treblaine]

While talking to a friend about the recent Supreme Court case, he brought up an interesting point that I never thought about that hard. Just like with movies, no one under 17 can see an R rated movie without a parent/guardian due to a VOLUNTARY committee. Same with games and M ratings. What is legal about discriminating against someone due to age?

Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious, but any input is appreciated.

I brought up the right of a store to deny service to someone. But to do so solely due to age seems a little wrong.

Sex discrimination is bad.

Race Discrimination is bad.

People who don't know what the word discrimination actually MEAN tend to assume it means "TO be mean based on race/sex". Discrimination literally means "The act of making a distinction for or against something/somebody". It used to be (and really still is) a compliment to say that someone is "A discriminating character" as in they will not suffer fools or or a good judge of character.

For example it would be discrimination for an employer to not hire a dumbass who won't do the job well. It is also discrimination to not hire a woman for a job, but if she can in fact do the job just as well as men then that is prejudice and unreasonable discrimination.

Age discrimination is very reasonable, most obviously on age of consent laws that obviously cannot be the same with a 12 year old as a 40 year old.

One concept in the west is "Age of Majority" that is at 18 you should be free of all age restrictions and have all the rights till you die. 21 drinking age

 

[coolkirb]

If it is a private organization they can do what they want, you can have the local branch of your KKK or whatever not let black people koin their club, people can legally be private racists and celebrate that. A crude example I know.

 

[Darth_MAM]

I its for safety reasons rather discrimination; when its said that you need a guardian so they can guide or explain to you what are you watching and how to assimilate it without any any kind of complication. YES, I know that kids watch porn, gore and many other kinds of forbithen films (my self included) and that doesnt turn them into serial rapist/murders and the like. NO, they shouldnt be banned (completely) because that would make it more "exquisite" for children and would make it worse.

So, in conclution: if we allow kids to explore the world at their will without any kind of restrain it would be like rolling the dices for their future... and they are a ***** choosing for you... rather than that, we have to make sure that they get well informed and recibe guidance on what they discover 'till the point where they can make their own judment. Yes, it sounds depending, needy or even tyrant, but lets face it: wether you are black or white, european or asian, old or young, people are idiots... no offence... idiots.

 

[TheOtherDaniel]

In this frantically politically correct world, there has been a loss of the term "discriminating" as being something positive. If someone had discriminating tastes, it was meant as a comment that they were discerning and of sound judgement.

A certain amount of healthy discrimination happens all the time, such as discriminating on the basis of ability when interviewing job applicants. I run my own business, and we are, technically, NOT an equal opportunity. If you have poor time management skills, poor people skills, don't care about personal hygiene or can't commit to turning up, well, dang, you don't get the job.

I'm not actually sure about the case in question (being outside America) but if someone as a retailer deems that their product should not be supplied to someone as it may cause them, or others, harm, than I'd say that, yes, it's discrimination, but it shows wisdom and discernment and... COMMON SENSE. Even if it is technically not legal, as apparently common sense has been outlawed in some states...

 

[Mogule]

If it is a private organization they can do what they want, you can have the local branch of your KKK or whatever not let black people koin their club, people can legally be private racists and celebrate that. A crude example I know.

As I pointed out earlier, Gamestop is a publicly traded company that adheres to the minor rule.