Question for CFC teenagers

[puglover]

Of course I am responsible for my actions. Teens should be mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't consider myself a child. But I don't consider myself an adult. I'm in a transition stage.

I'm 14, btw.

 

[elfangor801]

I'm 14, and I still consider myself a child. I'm responsible for my own actions, and I'm aware of the consequences. Kids these days have forgotten that they're still kids. My friends hate it when I say that. Schools/parents make children think that they're adults and make them feel older then they really are, but then when they screw up, they don't punish them for it...

I've noticed a lot of subtle things in society that do that. Like playing Blink-182 after SpongeBob, having Paris Hilton at the kids choice awards. Eight year olds wearing Hollister. Etc. While that might not seem bad, try talking to a kid and letting him know how old he is. He won't like it, because he thinks that he should be able to do whatever he wants or your "putting him down" or something stupid like that. The overwhelming majority 14 and 15 year olds can't make decent decisions, whether they seem to think so or not. I know I shouldn't be making important ones, and I don't for the most part.

The problem with the word "teenager" is that it represents such a large cross-section of people. There are some 13 year olds more mature than some 19 year olds, labeling them all as "teens" just doesn't seem right. I know people in my class that could basically be labeled as mature adults, but I also know some who are about as mature as 7th graders.

I also think that for the most part, "teens" should be held responsible for their actions, because, regardless of upbringing, or any other excuse, at that point in life they know the difference between right and wrong.

 

[ainwood]

I find it quite amusing to see the "21 is a joke for drinking beer" responses.

In New Zealand, the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. Now, as a result of what can only be termed a failed-experiment, there is a lot of support for raising it again - higher teenage pregnancies, higher crime commited by teenagers, many more people killed in teen-alcohol-related car crashes etc etc.

A lot of this can be blamed on the fact that the lower age limit was "sold" as being a "Hard-18" - previously, although it was legally 20; the defacto age was 18. The reality was that when it was dropped to 18, the defacto age became 16, and even people as young as 10 - 12 were drinking.

The point? From my perspective, the attitude seems to be "yes, I'm mature enough to deal with this". The problem is that this is the prevailing attitude, and yet its not a universal reality.

 

[blindside]

Same thing happened in the US when they lowered the age back to 18 sometime in the late 70s/early 80s. Huge spike in accidents/drunk driving.

 

[silver 2039]

1. No
2. No
3. There are no laws on drinking, smoking, haing sex, and drving here. I cand do it whever the hell I want.

 

[10Seven]

Many half-self aware people, with the benefit of hind-sight can clearly see that whilst earlier they felt so capable, their skills/ abilities were far from fully developed.

It's as plain as the fact that a person cannot drive a car without learning/experiencing.

Crying discrimination doesn't change the fact.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I recently turned 19, and to be honest I don't like the fact that I'm so old. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the new rights and the level of respect that I get, but I fear losing my youthful edge, my spirit of adventure, my creativity, my personality, etc. to both the mental effects of age and to the higher levels of conformity required in adulthood.

I do consider myself a child in the positive ways outlined above, and I hope that I will remain "childish" in those ways even as I gain new rights, powers, knowledge, and social standing. I believe there are many successful adults who remain childlike in those ways; in fact, I believe that being childish in those way is a key aspect of success.

As for the second question, I never really had a problem with the limited rights I had, except during 7th and 8th grade, where I started finding school rules a bit restrictive. In High School, I got a lot more freedom, which met my expectations, and the same in college so far.

For the third question, yes, I believe there need to be some limits on the youth. Certain levels of education should be required for national security and economic reasons and certain standards in those levels need to be upheld. If that means holding people in school against their will, so be it. I think in the end they'll appreciate it.

 

[ainwood]

I recently turned 19, and to be honest I don't like the fact that I'm so old. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the new rights and the level of respect that I get, but I fear losing my youthful edge, my spirit of adventure, my creativity, my personality, etc. to both the mental effects of age and to the higher levels of conformity required in adulthood.

Well, you've got a lot further to go yet on your downward-spiral into dementia - look at me - senile at 30.

Now where's Padma?


On topic: I do think hind-sight is important for perspective. I think a lot differently now than when I was a teenager; mostly (I think) for the better.

 

[Truronian]

Do you consider yourself a child?

I'd saying more adult than child, but not completely adult.

Do you think you incapable of being responsible for your actions?

No, but I think some other, younger teens can be.

Do you agree with the state of limited human rights which teenagers have (in the United States)?

Yes

I suppose this is touchy subject for me because I felt my rights were abused as a youth. My exact situation(s) are not important but I will state my main qualms with the laws regarding American youth below.

A teenager (below a certain age - depends on the state) can be sent at any time to any school (or institution) their parents deem appropriate. The teenager can then be held there against his or her wishes until whatever age the state deems it is appropriate for him or her to be able to decide their own fate (often for years).

Some of these places are quite extremely disfunctional, and the laws of free speech, freedom of movement and freedom of possesion are routinely dismissed or ignored completely. Many parents simply do not want to the responsibility that comes with raising a teenager and would rather opt (even at great cost although of course preferably if the state pays) to have someone else hold their youth for them even against the wishes of the individual.

IMO a young adult should have the right to choose where he/she wants to live and where he/she wants to go to school. I do not think parents should have the right to displace their son or daughter in the name of "what's best for them" without consent.

I'm open for respectful discussion. [/QUOTE]

From reading this, yours seems to be a unique case. In 99% of cases parents want whats best for the children. Are there not some kind of social services that you could have contacted?

Plus there is the problem of rebellious teenagers, who if you gave the choice would move out at 12 and never go to school. I believe teenagers are not mature enough mentally to make such life affecting desicions.

 

[amadeus]

Do you consider yourself a child?

Since I'll be 20 next month, uh..well, do I feel like a child? No.

Do you think you incapable of being responsible for your actions?

I've made decisions and I live with them. I am responsible for my actions, even though I'm not yet responsible for providing my own shelter, food, etc.

Do you agree with the state of limited human rights which teenagers have (in the United States)?

Yes, because they don't really know any better. I didn't.

I suppose this is touchy subject for me because I felt my rights were abused as a youth. My exact situation(s) are not important but I will state my main qualms with the laws regarding American youth below.

I'd say everyone, especially teenagers, feel that their "rights" are being abused.

A teenager (below a certain age - depends on the state) can be sent at any time to any school (or institution) their parents deem appropriate. The teenager can then be held there against his or her wishes until whatever age the state deems it is appropriate for him or her to be able to decide their own fate (often for years).

Where exactly do you stop this, though? Is someone that is 16, 13, or 10 fit to make their own decisions?

Some of these places are quite extremely disfunctional, and the laws of free speech, freedom of movement and freedom of possesion are routinely dismissed or ignored completely.

Those rights do not apply to people on someone else's property. If someone from the Communist Party USA showed up on my doorstep, I'd tell them to buzz off. They'd have to leave, because it's my property and I have the right to tell them to stay off.

Many parents simply do not want to the responsibility that comes with raising a teenager and would rather opt (even at great cost although of course preferably if the state pays) to have someone else hold their youth for them even against the wishes of the individual.

This goes back to where an individual is considered competent to make their own decisions.

IMO a young adult should have the right to choose where he/she wants to live and where he/she wants to go to school. I do not think parents should have the right to displace their son or daughter in the name of "what's best for them" without consent.

Let's say I want to live in Honolulu and attend the University of Hawaii. Would I have the "right" to live there, and who pays for the housing for that supposed right? Would this only apply to the United States, or could I move to a country like Gabon?

 

[Plexus]

1. Adult>Me>Child

2. No, but other teens are much worse at reasoning than I am.

3. Yes, for the most part.

 

[Padma]

Well, you've got a lot further to go yet on your downward-spiral into dementia - look at me - senile at 30.

Now where's Padma?


On topic: I do think hind-sight is important for perspective. I think a lot differently now than when I was a teenager; mostly (I think) for the better.

Who? Me? Senile?? Why, I'm only fifty-mumble-mumble-drool...

Actually, I agree with ainwood: hindsight is very important. There is a reason adults make rules restricting children. The biggest problem is defining where *childhood* ends. While I know some "thirty-somethings" that really should go back and live with Mommy and Daddy for a few more years (decades), and I know some "children" who are as mature as many adults, when speaking of the broad picture, not the exceptions, we find that age 18 is a good, rough, approximation. Most kids are resonably mature within a year one side or the other of that milestone.

As for my opinions on some of the things discussed in this thread:

Having sex: We're not a backwards society anymore, where we needed to be pushing out babies as often and as rapidly as possible to create farmhands, and to replace all those who died in childhood. Sex should be reserved for when you are old enough to actually handle it. Kids don't think sensibly, especially when their hormones are in overdrive. The *official* age for consenual sex should be 18, but without criminal penalties for when kids go at it - just a good swift boot in the ass.

Drinking: One of the problems American society has is with teaching people to drink responsibly. Since it's not legal until age 21, when kids get ahold of alcohol (which they do) they only learn "binge drinking". I would lower the age to 16, possibly lower with parental consent. Maybe then they could learn that "getting bombed" is just plain stupid.

Driving: In conjuntion with drinking above, I would raise the age for getting a drivers license to *at least* 18. The most dangerous drivers on the road are the teenagers (followed closely by those 80+ -- but there's a lot more teenagers on the road). They are currently put in charge of a lethal weapon right when they are most prone to misuse it. A couple extra years of maturing wouldn't hurt any of them.

Generally speaking: if you think you're mature at 16, wait just four years, and then look back and see how stupid you were.

 

[Moss]

Couldn't agree more with Pad's last sentence...(and most of everything else he and ainwood have said).

That being said, there are mature 16 year olds and there are immature 21 year olds, but as a whole...

And I think maturity goes with experience, not age...the more you experience, the more you succeed, fail, see things, the more grasp of the world you will have. Everyone's maturity level is very high in some area's, very low in others. Using myself as an example I can say that I'm pretty mature when it comes to certain issues, but unlike SN, who's worried about losing that youthful vigor, I never really had it...so one could say I'm very immature when it comes to social situations.

 

[Pyrite]

Do you consider yourself a child?

Definitly.

Do you think you incapable of being responsible for your actions?

It depends. We're all responsible for our actions, but I don't think any one of us is able to judge correctly in a moment of totality, where our lives would be altered forever, regardless of age.

Do you agree with the state of limited human rights which teenagers have (in the United States)?

No. Institutionalization is crap. Not voting is crap. Not drinking is crap. Being able to be detained whenever a pig wants to, you guessed it, crap.

I'm 18, so some of that goes away, but I remember it buggin me whenever I'd get hassled or anything. I guess just ignore power structures and they don't have any power over you, that's pretty much all you can do.

 

[The Yankee]

Generally speaking: if you think you're mature at 16, wait just four years, and then look back and see how stupid you were.

Honestly, looking back four years, I don't think I was all that stupid at 16. Then again, if I had been in an environment with more (and crazier) friends, I'd probably be the one proclaiming myself emperor of Censoredland.

But it doesn't mean I'll trust every 16 year old. Come on, all you have to do is walk outside to see how silly and too carefree a lot of them are. It's nice to have fun, but it makes me wonder sometimes whether they'll wise up in two years or not.

Now I was pretty stupid when I was 17...but that might have been a severe concussion talking instead.

 

[toh6wy]

1. No - but I will always retain that childish spirit!
2. No. Barring unusual situations.
3. I agree with some of them. The later people are allowed to drink and smoke, the better IMO. However, it'd be nice to be able to vote. I'm sure I'd be more competent than plenty of "official" adults.

 

[Narz]

Let's say I want to live in Honolulu and attend the University of Hawaii. Would I have the "right" to live there, and who pays for the housing for that supposed right? Would this only apply to the United States, or could I move to a country like Gabon?

I never said you wouldn't have to pay your own way. If you could support yourself you should have the right to go where you please, even at 15, that's what I believe anyway.

My main qualm here is not the drinking laws or driving laws or even consent laws it's with the fact that until a certain age youths are considered the property of their parents and can have little to no say about where they live.

 

[Kayak]

Ainwood and Padma said it well.

This topic reminds me that a study done not too long ago determined that contrary to popular belief, that the human brain is not fully developot at age 18. The area that still needed time?
as you can probably guess, it was part that assisted with thinking ahead and determining the consequence of actions.

I'm 35 now (oof that hurt) and while I was a pretty adult acting, I was still a kid in many, many ways. And probably an arrogant twit.

 

[SonicX]

I find it quite amusing to see the "21 is a joke for drinking beer" responses.

In New Zealand, the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. Now, as a result of what can only be termed a failed-experiment, there is a lot of support for raising it again - higher teenage pregnancies, higher crime commited by teenagers, many more people killed in teen-alcohol-related car crashes etc etc.

A lot of this can be blamed on the fact that the lower age limit was "sold" as being a "Hard-18" - previously, although it was legally 20; the defacto age was 18. The reality was that when it was dropped to 18, the defacto age became 16, and even people as young as 10 - 12 were drinking.

The point? From my perspective, the attitude seems to be "yes, I'm mature enough to deal with this". The problem is that this is the prevailing attitude, and yet its not a universal reality.

Well, I look at if differently. The drinking age in Belguim has been 16 for as long as I can remember and there aren't that much problems with the alcohol itself.
Ofcourse there are illegal 14-15 drinking alcohol pops at parties, but I think the pro's outwheigh the con's for this country.

Mainly because the main force behind teen sex, voilent behavior and others do not seem to be alcohol ... teens are also violent or having sex when sober.
It has more to do with moral degradation than alcohol.

On the pro side of alcohol, I'd say, from first hand experience, that it's an excellent way to make parties work. Belgians are a very shy, cool, nordic folks and therefore the athmosphere at sober parties might be dull, boring and asocial. With a few beers though, those cool, shy teens finally move and start to talk and dance with one another.
It's a social lifesaver for those are shy of nature, and it has been for me too.
The downsides cannot compete with this upside ... alcohol has kept a lot of teens out a lonely depression by helping them making first contact with others.

 

[Warman17]

Sorry to burst your bubble but Belgium is very different from America. What works there won't work here.