Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?
I think the idea is that kids brains are still developing, so their decision-making should be considered temporarily impaired. If their brains won’t develop further, then there’s not really any reason to restrict them from things that only harm themselves (e.g. smoking and drinking), though they should potentially have some guardrails around other people harming them (e.g. scams and other forms of fraud).
That said, I’m against this law. I think parents should be responsible for what media their children consume, and this law could conceivably be used against parents who make sure their kids are safely interacting w/ social media, and it could motivate the kids who need the supervision to be more discrete (i.e. use a VPN).
Again, this argument is extremely weak and fails under even the slightest investigation.
Firstly, the claim that kids brains are developing but adults’ brains aren’t is just factually untrue. Redditors love to repeat a little “factoid” about 25 being the age that the brain matures, but it’s just not true. Everyone develops differently and some people may be functionally mature in their mid teens, others may take much longer. Additionally there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing, so everyone’s brains are always developing. So now you have to draw a line about, how much development is enough? and that asks the question, how do you measure brain development? And there’s actually not really any good answer to that question.
Even if you had some vague range under which brains are developed, which again, we don’t have - where would you draw a line? Anywhere you put it is going to be arbitrary and exclusionary. If you place it somewhere, let’s say, 18, then ask yourself - is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility? If your answer is yes, then by making that line 18, you’re being ageist.
99% of all oppressions against young people are not justifiable.
there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing
Sure, but the “25 years old” figure comes from when the pre-frontal cortex is sufficiently developed (i.e. reaches peak volume). That part of the brain has a lot to do with cognitive control, and it’s generally a time when most people have made or are about to make very long-term decisions, such as careers, relationships, etc.
The age of 18 for being an “adult” is even more arbitrary, 25 is a pretty decent cut-off that has some scientific merit. I’m not saying we should base any laws on it, I’m just saying that after that point, you’re probably about as prepared to make these types of choices as you’ll ever be, so if you have a mental development disability, we should probably end any restrictions around that time unless you specifically opt-in to additional protections.
is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility?
Sure, which is why every rule like this should have exceptions. For example, I think we should allow 16yos (and perhaps 15yos) to vote, if they can answer important questions about how government works (i.e. what does a Senator do vs a House Rep?), policy choices of various candidates, etc. As in, demonstrate that they are actually interested in politics instead of just being pushed/manipulated by their parents/other adults. That type of “test” should exist for any policy where there’s an age gate. Who is in power absolutely will impact 16yos before they get a chance to vote, so it makes a ton of sense to give them a say if they’re aware of the political process.
But once you’re an adult, society has essentially decided that you’re free to screw up your life. We let you smoke, drink (in some areas), go into debt, join the military, etc. If we’re okay with that, there’s no reason to limit your choices on other things as well.
Going back to the topic at hand, if this law needs to exist, there should be a way for younger kids to demonstrate understanding of the dangers of social media, how to recognize predators, etc in order to get access before that legal cutoff. But even if that exists, I’m still against it because of the privacy violations that would need to exist to actually enforce this law. If this is just a token law and is effectively neutered by other privacy laws, maybe it’s not an issue. I don’t know Norwegian law, but I do have a similar law here and it absolutely involves privacy violations to enforce (i.e. have to provide government-issued ID to many websites now).
I disagree with you quite strongly on the topic of elections, I don’t see why being able to demonstrate knowledge of trivia is necessary for being able to express your political preference.
Personally, I would open it to anyone who is interested in voting may do so. There is basically no good reason against this, in my opinion.
Again, the pre-frontal cortex development stuff is as close to pseudoscience as it gets. We don’t really understand how a lot of brain function works, so the entire field absolutely reeks of phrenology to me.
Oh, and what a surprise! It’s being used to justify oppression. Isn’t that fun? Just like good old times!!
Government structure isn’t trivia, it’s a pretty foundational part of an election and part of K-12 education. You need to know which promises a candidate can and cannot deliver to make an informed decision IMO. This doesn’t apply to anyone 18+ because the Constitution (at least here in the US) guarantees a right to vote, so this would merely be a metric to separate interested underage individuals from those w/ crazy parents who want to try to stuff ballot boxes. We should also probably require anyone under 18 who votes to do so at a private ballot booth (as opposed to mail voting, for example), without their parents present, so they can’t be coerced into voting a particular way. If you have a legal guardian, there’s always the possibility of that guardian manipulating you to serve their own interests, and that needs to be accounted for in any broad-reaching policy like extending voting access.
We don’t really understand how a lot of brain function works
Fair, but that’s like saying “we don’t know the exact terrain of Mars so we can’t build a rover.” We know a lot about how brains develop, what parts of the brain do what, and so on. We use it in developing treatments for the brain, and those treatments work, and we’re learning more about why those treatments work every day.
Yes, there’s no magical cutoff for brain development because everyone is different. But there is a range, and AFAIK the consensus is that the brain is largely completed developing (however you define that) by your early 20s. Some people are ready sooner than that, some aren’t ready until later, but in general, most people can be considered “fully developed” around 20-25 yo. There’s little to no scientific evidence that 18 is a reasonable number for much of anything, and that number seems to be largely driven by culture (i.e. you’re strong enough to work on your own, so go work on your own).
I’m not suggesting any change in official or unofficial policy WRT age, and I think we largely agree that we should have more consideration for maturity (again, however we define that) rather than age. An 18yo dating a 17yo is a lot different than a 17yo dating a 14yo, yet the former is technically illegal in many areas while the latter is fine. But that doesn’t mean any discussion about age is unproductive, and having some age ranges makes a lot of sense when reasoning about a problem.
Who fucking cares if someone knows, or doesn’t, who,
or what, a legislator is? It doesn’t matter. 99.999% of voting adults might just about be able to name the President, but we don’t need them to confirm that. All they need to do is put a mark next to a candidate whom presumably they’ve heard about. Or maybe they haven’t. Who gives a shit? The important thing is that we do not exclude people who do give a shit.
The sort of tests you propose historically have been used to disenfranchise black voters, and you’re just suggesting that they be used to disenfranchise young voters. More phrenology vibes.
Your whole “private poll booth” thing is again just needless and exclusionary. Again, what’s to stop an adult child being coerced into voting a certain way, or an adult with an abusive partner, or even just housemates? All of these people and more are very capable of manipulating others into serving their interests, and yet you are only interested in abridging the rights of children. Maybe we should also force disabled people to come and vote in person, too? And if they can’t, because their wheelchair doesn’t fit, well… at least they weren’t coerced!!
We know a lot about how brains develop, what parts of the brain do what, and so on
I’m not convinced that we do. We think we know a few things, but a lot of what we “knew” about brains has been proven completely wrong time and time and time again. This is just the latest, wrong, thing. So yeah, phrenology. I’m not interested in it at all.
This obsession with making something which is not measurable (maturity) into something which is (number of days alive on the planet) isn’t helpful. So god knows why we add that extra hoop of “brain development” into there, it’s just yet another unknown unmeasurable.
I explained that. Without any limits here, we’ll just have families pressuring their kids to vote a certain way, so we’re just amplifying the voices of oppressive parents. Having some kind of requirement limits the pool of underage voters to those who actually care, so we’re more likely to get a more realistic votes from those individuals.
The test shouldn’t be hard and should be covered in school, but it should be enough of a barrier that only kids who actually care for their voices to be heard can do so. It should probably be similar to the interview questions for citizenship (i.e. when my SO was naturalized, they needed to know our rep, senators, governor, and president), plus some amount of current events so they’re at least somewhat informed.
When it comes to legal adults, they are no longer legally beholden to their parents in any meaningful way, so there’s less of a risk there. I’m sure it still happens, but we’ve decided it’s a constitutional right (again, in the US) for people over a certain age to vote, provided they don’t have any restrictions on that right (i.e. certain criminal convictions). I’m much more interested in removing those exceptions than blindly extending voting privileges to minors.
The sort of tests you propose historically have been used to disenfranchise black voters, and you’re just suggesting that they be used to disenfranchise young voters.
No, the difference is that black voters had a constitutional right to vote, and that was being curtailed by unnecessary barriers.
Minors have no constitutional right to vote, so this will be a privilege just like driving is. If you’re underage and want a driver’s license, you need to take driver’s ed (in many states), get a permit for a period (I think every state?), and then take a written and driving test, whereas if you’re 18, you can skip driver’s ed and the permit and just take the written and driving tests. So underage people who want to vote can either wait until they’re 18, or they can take a civics test.
Again, what’s to stop an adult child being coerced into voting a certain way, or an adult with an abusive partner, or even just housemates?
That’s irrelevant, because they have a constitutional right to vote.
And if they can’t, because their wheelchair doesn’t fit, well… at least they weren’t coerced!!
There are plenty of organizations that facilitate getting disabled and elderly people to polling locations, and I think it would make sense for that to be a broader government service (if it’s not already, I’m not too familiar with it). I see voting as a moral obligation to sustain a functioning democracy, and I support any means to make it more accessible (esp. mail voting, which I use every year).
And honestly, I’d be 100% happy with underage students early voting at school, provided no adult is present when they actually cast their vote. It should always be 100% confidential, and that cannot be expected with at-home voting IMO, and it’s much easier to manage in a school setting (perhaps have reps from multiple parties overseeing the voting process).
This obsession with making something which is not measurable (maturity) into something which is (number of days alive on the planet) isn’t helpful
Agreed, but it’s sadly the best, objective system we have to work with. Ideally we base it as much on science as we can manage, while excluding as few people as possible.
I watched a recent SciShow video about brain development (specifically the 25yo myth), and it seems the most accurate number is more like 20-29, at least in terms of development of casings around nerves (to facilitate better signal propagation). It’s not a number about “maturity,” but it’s a range for when the prefrontal cortex is largely developed and nerves are able to communicate better. People obviously are capable of learning right up until they die or get certain forms of handicap, but it seems we can point to somewhere in the 20s as being a good cut-off for “rapidly developing” vs “regular adult.”
That said, none of that is relevant to the above discussion. I don’t support increasing the voting age or adding any more requirements than we already have (in fact, I believe we should reduce them), I just think that if we extend privileges to young people, we should also add checks to the system. In this case, we should control for controlling parents and kids who vote largely based on heresay. I think that has a much better change of producing informed voters than just extending the same privileges adults have without any checks at all.
I think the idea is that kids brains are still developing, so their decision-making should be considered temporarily impaired. If their brains won’t develop further, then there’s not really any reason to restrict them from things that only harm themselves (e.g. smoking and drinking), though they should potentially have some guardrails around other people harming them (e.g. scams and other forms of fraud).
That said, I’m against this law. I think parents should be responsible for what media their children consume, and this law could conceivably be used against parents who make sure their kids are safely interacting w/ social media, and it could motivate the kids who need the supervision to be more discrete (i.e. use a VPN).
Again, this argument is extremely weak and fails under even the slightest investigation.
Firstly, the claim that kids brains are developing but adults’ brains aren’t is just factually untrue. Redditors love to repeat a little “factoid” about 25 being the age that the brain matures, but it’s just not true. Everyone develops differently and some people may be functionally mature in their mid teens, others may take much longer. Additionally there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing, so everyone’s brains are always developing. So now you have to draw a line about, how much development is enough? and that asks the question, how do you measure brain development? And there’s actually not really any good answer to that question.
Even if you had some vague range under which brains are developed, which again, we don’t have - where would you draw a line? Anywhere you put it is going to be arbitrary and exclusionary. If you place it somewhere, let’s say, 18, then ask yourself - is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility? If your answer is yes, then by making that line 18, you’re being ageist.
99% of all oppressions against young people are not justifiable.
Sure, but the “25 years old” figure comes from when the pre-frontal cortex is sufficiently developed (i.e. reaches peak volume). That part of the brain has a lot to do with cognitive control, and it’s generally a time when most people have made or are about to make very long-term decisions, such as careers, relationships, etc.
The age of 18 for being an “adult” is even more arbitrary, 25 is a pretty decent cut-off that has some scientific merit. I’m not saying we should base any laws on it, I’m just saying that after that point, you’re probably about as prepared to make these types of choices as you’ll ever be, so if you have a mental development disability, we should probably end any restrictions around that time unless you specifically opt-in to additional protections.
Sure, which is why every rule like this should have exceptions. For example, I think we should allow 16yos (and perhaps 15yos) to vote, if they can answer important questions about how government works (i.e. what does a Senator do vs a House Rep?), policy choices of various candidates, etc. As in, demonstrate that they are actually interested in politics instead of just being pushed/manipulated by their parents/other adults. That type of “test” should exist for any policy where there’s an age gate. Who is in power absolutely will impact 16yos before they get a chance to vote, so it makes a ton of sense to give them a say if they’re aware of the political process.
But once you’re an adult, society has essentially decided that you’re free to screw up your life. We let you smoke, drink (in some areas), go into debt, join the military, etc. If we’re okay with that, there’s no reason to limit your choices on other things as well.
Going back to the topic at hand, if this law needs to exist, there should be a way for younger kids to demonstrate understanding of the dangers of social media, how to recognize predators, etc in order to get access before that legal cutoff. But even if that exists, I’m still against it because of the privacy violations that would need to exist to actually enforce this law. If this is just a token law and is effectively neutered by other privacy laws, maybe it’s not an issue. I don’t know Norwegian law, but I do have a similar law here and it absolutely involves privacy violations to enforce (i.e. have to provide government-issued ID to many websites now).
I disagree with you quite strongly on the topic of elections, I don’t see why being able to demonstrate knowledge of trivia is necessary for being able to express your political preference.
Personally, I would open it to anyone who is interested in voting may do so. There is basically no good reason against this, in my opinion.
Again, the pre-frontal cortex development stuff is as close to pseudoscience as it gets. We don’t really understand how a lot of brain function works, so the entire field absolutely reeks of phrenology to me.
Oh, and what a surprise! It’s being used to justify oppression. Isn’t that fun? Just like good old times!!
Government structure isn’t trivia, it’s a pretty foundational part of an election and part of K-12 education. You need to know which promises a candidate can and cannot deliver to make an informed decision IMO. This doesn’t apply to anyone 18+ because the Constitution (at least here in the US) guarantees a right to vote, so this would merely be a metric to separate interested underage individuals from those w/ crazy parents who want to try to stuff ballot boxes. We should also probably require anyone under 18 who votes to do so at a private ballot booth (as opposed to mail voting, for example), without their parents present, so they can’t be coerced into voting a particular way. If you have a legal guardian, there’s always the possibility of that guardian manipulating you to serve their own interests, and that needs to be accounted for in any broad-reaching policy like extending voting access.
Fair, but that’s like saying “we don’t know the exact terrain of Mars so we can’t build a rover.” We know a lot about how brains develop, what parts of the brain do what, and so on. We use it in developing treatments for the brain, and those treatments work, and we’re learning more about why those treatments work every day.
Yes, there’s no magical cutoff for brain development because everyone is different. But there is a range, and AFAIK the consensus is that the brain is largely completed developing (however you define that) by your early 20s. Some people are ready sooner than that, some aren’t ready until later, but in general, most people can be considered “fully developed” around 20-25 yo. There’s little to no scientific evidence that 18 is a reasonable number for much of anything, and that number seems to be largely driven by culture (i.e. you’re strong enough to work on your own, so go work on your own).
I’m not suggesting any change in official or unofficial policy WRT age, and I think we largely agree that we should have more consideration for maturity (again, however we define that) rather than age. An 18yo dating a 17yo is a lot different than a 17yo dating a 14yo, yet the former is technically illegal in many areas while the latter is fine. But that doesn’t mean any discussion about age is unproductive, and having some age ranges makes a lot of sense when reasoning about a problem.
That’s a bit reductionist.
Yet more oppressive shit for no good reason.
Who fucking cares if someone knows, or doesn’t, who, or what, a legislator is? It doesn’t matter. 99.999% of voting adults might just about be able to name the President, but we don’t need them to confirm that. All they need to do is put a mark next to a candidate whom presumably they’ve heard about. Or maybe they haven’t. Who gives a shit? The important thing is that we do not exclude people who do give a shit.
The sort of tests you propose historically have been used to disenfranchise black voters, and you’re just suggesting that they be used to disenfranchise young voters. More phrenology vibes.
Your whole “private poll booth” thing is again just needless and exclusionary. Again, what’s to stop an adult child being coerced into voting a certain way, or an adult with an abusive partner, or even just housemates? All of these people and more are very capable of manipulating others into serving their interests, and yet you are only interested in abridging the rights of children. Maybe we should also force disabled people to come and vote in person, too? And if they can’t, because their wheelchair doesn’t fit, well… at least they weren’t coerced!!
I’m not convinced that we do. We think we know a few things, but a lot of what we “knew” about brains has been proven completely wrong time and time and time again. This is just the latest, wrong, thing. So yeah, phrenology. I’m not interested in it at all.
This obsession with making something which is not measurable (maturity) into something which is (number of days alive on the planet) isn’t helpful. So god knows why we add that extra hoop of “brain development” into there, it’s just yet another unknown unmeasurable.
I explained that. Without any limits here, we’ll just have families pressuring their kids to vote a certain way, so we’re just amplifying the voices of oppressive parents. Having some kind of requirement limits the pool of underage voters to those who actually care, so we’re more likely to get a more realistic votes from those individuals.
The test shouldn’t be hard and should be covered in school, but it should be enough of a barrier that only kids who actually care for their voices to be heard can do so. It should probably be similar to the interview questions for citizenship (i.e. when my SO was naturalized, they needed to know our rep, senators, governor, and president), plus some amount of current events so they’re at least somewhat informed.
When it comes to legal adults, they are no longer legally beholden to their parents in any meaningful way, so there’s less of a risk there. I’m sure it still happens, but we’ve decided it’s a constitutional right (again, in the US) for people over a certain age to vote, provided they don’t have any restrictions on that right (i.e. certain criminal convictions). I’m much more interested in removing those exceptions than blindly extending voting privileges to minors.
No, the difference is that black voters had a constitutional right to vote, and that was being curtailed by unnecessary barriers.
Minors have no constitutional right to vote, so this will be a privilege just like driving is. If you’re underage and want a driver’s license, you need to take driver’s ed (in many states), get a permit for a period (I think every state?), and then take a written and driving test, whereas if you’re 18, you can skip driver’s ed and the permit and just take the written and driving tests. So underage people who want to vote can either wait until they’re 18, or they can take a civics test.
That’s irrelevant, because they have a constitutional right to vote.
There are plenty of organizations that facilitate getting disabled and elderly people to polling locations, and I think it would make sense for that to be a broader government service (if it’s not already, I’m not too familiar with it). I see voting as a moral obligation to sustain a functioning democracy, and I support any means to make it more accessible (esp. mail voting, which I use every year).
And honestly, I’d be 100% happy with underage students early voting at school, provided no adult is present when they actually cast their vote. It should always be 100% confidential, and that cannot be expected with at-home voting IMO, and it’s much easier to manage in a school setting (perhaps have reps from multiple parties overseeing the voting process).
Agreed, but it’s sadly the best, objective system we have to work with. Ideally we base it as much on science as we can manage, while excluding as few people as possible.
I watched a recent SciShow video about brain development (specifically the 25yo myth), and it seems the most accurate number is more like 20-29, at least in terms of development of casings around nerves (to facilitate better signal propagation). It’s not a number about “maturity,” but it’s a range for when the prefrontal cortex is largely developed and nerves are able to communicate better. People obviously are capable of learning right up until they die or get certain forms of handicap, but it seems we can point to somewhere in the 20s as being a good cut-off for “rapidly developing” vs “regular adult.”
That said, none of that is relevant to the above discussion. I don’t support increasing the voting age or adding any more requirements than we already have (in fact, I believe we should reduce them), I just think that if we extend privileges to young people, we should also add checks to the system. In this case, we should control for controlling parents and kids who vote largely based on heresay. I think that has a much better change of producing informed voters than just extending the same privileges adults have without any checks at all.