age descrimination Options

[iheartsimba]

do you think society has age descrimination?
(with laws, or parent rules, or school rules, ect)?

[dukesoccer07]

No, its not age discrimation... its based on maturity... you arent gonna give a 10 year old a liscense to drive... you are gonna give a 13 year old some alcohol... and you are gonna let a 9 year old vote...

its all maturity

[WildGriffin]

a little age discrimination. say a 16 year old and 40 year old are argueing, both have equal knowledge but opposing positions on a subject. Who do you think a majority of people will side with? Not the "stupid kid", cause he doesn't know the reallll world mannnnnn. Stupid adults

[*CJ1*]

I think that's true. If you were talking to someone online who you thought was 15ish and you realized they were 8 or something, would you keep talking to them?

[dukesoccer07]

Thats all part of maturity and experience... older people have been through a lot more than you... you just have to accept that

[iheartsimba]

but about like voting, i don't understand what expirience has to do with it,...it is about maturity, but does that mean we don't have a right for an opinion. i mean i think they should no the facts about it all before they vote, but after 6th grade, i learned everyhting about politics.

[*AngelicEyz00*]

Of course there's discrimination. An 18 year old can go but a pack of cigarettes, but a 16 year old can't... A 22 year old can buy some beer but a 19 year old can't... A 30 year old can vote, but a 15 year old can't. That's dicrimiating. It doesn't nessecarilly have to connote something bad, but it IS technically discrimination

[iheartsimba]

what is the difference form an 18 year old buying cigaretts and a 17 year old bying cigarettes? is there really a difference in maturity in that 1 year...

[*AngelicEyz00*]

what is the difference form an 18 year old buying cigaretts and a 17 year old bying cigarettes? is there really a difference in maturity in that 1 year...

possibly not, but the government discriminates against the two because they say it's the law

[initial-seven]

I agree, itz because of maturity

I mean if 10 year olds are allowed to drive, imagine how they would drive?
There would be like car crashes everywhere. Children that young of an age might/will race eachother thinking it is fun......

Id be lik

[juliar]

Yes there is, only it is subconsciously. What do you think when you hear the words 10 year old genius as opposed to 60 year old genius? Which is more believable?
Oh and to you other people, the question isnt SHOULD there be age descrimination, its IS there age discrimination.

[m@dcow]

i think it's hardly noticable... because not many ppl will be pointing fingers and yelling that's age discrimination... i really don't think it matter much... but it is a good thing to point out

[iheartsimba]

I agree, itz because of maturity

I mean if 10 year olds are allowed to drive, imagine how they would drive?
There would be like car crashes everywhere. Children that young of an age might/will race eachother thinking it is fun......

Id be lik

well...i dunno about that.

kids always say "i'm never gonna smoke! ill always wear my seatbelt"
while lots of teenagers are smoking cigarettes right now...so you know,,,,

[*Kathleen*]

You have to set a limit somewhere...it's not really discrimination...

[ComradeRed]

do you think society has age descrimination?
(with laws, or parent rules, or school rules, ect)?

Of course there is.

Not necessarily a bad thing: Someone who failed to discriminate between a 10-year-old and a 40-year-old would be stupid in most situations, and criminal in some.

[*Kathleen*]

Not necessarily a bad thing: Someone who failed to discriminate between a 10-year-old and a 40-year-old would be stupid in most situations, and criminal in some.

Yeah, so is it not logical to base limits for things? It's not necessarily discrimination - they have reasons to believe ten year-olds are less mature than twenty year-olds.

[ComradeRed]

Yeah, so is it not logical to base limits for things? It's not necessarily discrimination - they have reasons to believe ten year-olds are less mature than twenty year-olds.

It's logical discrimination... It's good discrimination... doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

[*Kathleen*]

It's logical discrimination... It's good discrimination... doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

I suppose you're right.

[tkproduce]

I think you should always respect people that are older than you, unless you can justify being in a higher position than them - like a job position or something.

[iheartsimba]

^ i agree...


but what about just descrimination from being young.
not neccicarly, the good kind, but if your parents or someone is yelling at you rudly for no reason (last night at my house) and they say something incorrect, and you merley try to correct them, then they accuse you of talking back and ground you.

I mean what about parents who don't listen to a thing you have to say just because you are young?

My mom told me I can't dye my hair till im 15. I couldn't get a phone till 14. And yes, peirce my ears till I was 12. (which i decided not to do...)
Isn't that descriminist in a way? i asked her why i always needed to wait for EVERYTHING i wanted to do. she said bc ur to young.

[dasturbd]

what is the difference form an 18 year old buying cigaretts and a 17 year old bying cigarettes? is there really a difference in maturity in that 1 year...

since you waited 17 years...does it really matter all that much to wait one more??

[dasturbd]

Let's reverse the discrimination...

If you're 21 and you rape someone you go to jail, if youre 15 and you rape someone you go to juvenile and released at 21...is that fair??

If you kill someone by drunk-driving and you're over 21, you go to jail for vehicular homicide...if you're 17 and kill someone by drunk-driving, you go to juvy and lose your liscense till your 21...is that fair??

When your 18+ and you get a job...you're taxed to the fullest extent, when you're under 18 and have a job, you may get taxed, but your parents get to claim you still...is that fair??

When you're an adult and you mess up, people think you're hopeless...when you're a minor and you mess up, people say..."Oh she just needs some guidance"...is that fair??



It's no picnic being an "adult", contrary to belief. You'll find out for yourselves when you become "adults"

[*Kathleen*]

Let's reverse the discrimination...

If you're 21 and you rape someone you go to jail, if youre 15 and you rape someone you go to juvenile and released at 21...is that fair??

If you kill someone by drunk-driving and you're over 21, you go to jail for vehicular homicide...if you're 17 and kill someone by drunk-driving, you go to juvy and lose your liscense till your 21...is that fair??

When your 18+ and you get a job...you're taxed to the fullest extent, when you're under 18 and have a job, you may get taxed, but your parents get to claim you still...is that fair??

When you're an adult and you mess up, people think you're hopeless...when you're a minor and you mess up, people say..."Oh she just needs some guidance"...is that fair??



It's no picnic being an "adult", contrary to belief. You'll find out for yourselves when you become "adults"

Oh, I completely agree, and I'm not an adult yet! Us kids have it so easy, yet most of us are too blind to see it. In all seriousness, I don't want to become an adult. But you're right - you can wait a few years or so to do certain things, no biggie. You can't turn back time, though.

[annchovie]

mph. i hate that. i hate it when you've been standing in line for something, and the clerk just looks past you and takes care of the adult customer after you. i don't like how people think that you can do anything just because you're too young, or too small. it's not right.

[Nashvixen]

Okay, I stopped reading the replies after this last quote on mine.

No, its not age discrimation... its based on maturity... you arent gonna give a 10 year old a liscense to drive... you are gonna give a 13 year old some alcohol... and you are gonna let a 9 year old vote...

its all maturity

There is a huge difference between age and maturity! My dad is racist and most of our problems arise from our disagreements about this. I'm sorry but I do not accept that someone is more mature than me if that person discriminates against others for no reason whatsoever! (He's also sexist.)
I think that there is age discrimination, obviously, but there's no legit way of proving that someone is as they say they are. The government isn't going to go out of their way to follow you around to see if you're mature enough to impose an intellectual vote.

a little age discrimination. say a 16 year old and 40 year old are argueing, both have equal knowledge but opposing positions on a subject. Who do you think a majority of people will side with? Not the "stupid kid", cause he doesn't know the reallll world mannnnnn. Stupid adults 

I have argued with a 40-year-old and a 46-year-old and I can say that my experience with some folks isn't the sweetest tasting nectar. I feel that earlier generations are closed-minded because of the way they were taught to think.
I think that some "minors" should be able to vote, but only if they have a legit cause. If someone runs for president solely to legalize marijuana, every pot-smoker in the country will root and vote for him. (I'd have to say, if a woman ran for president, I'd be the first to give a standing innovation.)
Yes, my also doesn't think I know what the infamous "real world" is, but I'd beg to differ. OMG, what the heck, if I really don't know what the "real world" is, I hope to find out what... and why I'm not there!

Thats all part of maturity and experience... older people have been through a lot more than you... you just have to accept that

Nope, sorry. Some people have been so overprotected their entire life, and they can't compare themselves to someone who's been through it all.
Brainwashed 41-year-old woman, caters to her husbands every need without question maturer than a 18-year-old tax-paying, blue collar person from an abusive home and hard childhood, thinking about the big picture, not their own desires. Yeah. Experience...Age... Think about it.

Of course there's discrimination. An 18 year old can go but a pack of cigarettes, but a 16 year old can't... A 22 year old can buy some beer but a 19 year old can't... A 30 year old can vote, but a 15 year old can't. That's dicrimiating. It doesn't nessecarilly have to connote something bad, but it IS technically discrimination

I feel you here, but it really doesn't place a good debate. There are reasons minors and some adults aren't allowed to comsume alcohol. That wouldn't be discriminating. Generalizations would have served you better, but, like I said, I agree to an extent.

[Paradox of Life]

but about like voting, i don't understand what expirience has to do with it,...it is about maturity, but does that mean we don't have a right for an opinion. i mean i think they should no the facts about it all before they vote, but after 6th grade, i learned everyhting about politics.

Why do people not allow children or anyone under the age of 18 vote? The president of the United States is such a big deal! If tons of kids just suddenly decided they wanted to vote for "whatever their best friend said" or decided to just pick randomly that may seriously, politically mess up the voting which could mess up our country. Letting a 6 year old vote would be like, "Hey son, check that name and put it in the box. Good." It'd be way too complicated and there definitely would be controversy and if it wasn't against the law for people under 18 to vote, there would be nothing you could do about unfair voting.
You really can't tell maturity by age (or vice versa), but it's better to be on the safe side and let people who are in businesses and that know more about industries, politics, that have already gone through school, college etc from the "real world" do the voting. It's not a big deal.

[nevernothere]

Usually age discrimination refers to old ppl...

[clarissa]

Yes, in some places. For example, my school is near Ralphs. They recquire every student to place their backpacks infront of the door to make sure we won't shoplift. Not every high school student shop lifts, and it's not just us.

[innovation]

age requirements are necessary.. there's no concrete standard for measuring levels of "maturity." society just has to assume that a majority of 21-year-olds are more responsible than a majority of 16-year-olds.

[Trolling]

I agree, itz because of maturity

I mean if 10 year olds are allowed to drive, imagine how they would drive?
There would be like car crashes everywhere. Children that young of an age might/will race eachother thinking it is fun......

Id be lik 

Grown men and older teens do that... People that race in nascar... Going in a circle 500x yup -.-

[iheartsimba]

Why do people not allow children or anyone under the age of 18 vote? The president of the United States is such a big deal! If tons of kids just suddenly decided they wanted to vote for "whatever their best friend said" or decided to just pick randomly that may seriously, politically mess up the voting which could mess up our country. Letting a 6 year old vote would be like, "Hey son, check that name and put it in the box. Good." It'd be way too complicated and there definitely would be controversy and if it wasn't against the law for people under 18 to vote, there would be nothing you could do about unfair voting.
You really can't tell maturity by age (or vice versa), but it's better to be on the safe side and let people who are in businesses and that know more about industries, politics, that have already gone through school, college etc from the "real world" do the voting. It's not a big deal.

wow..i wrote that about 9 months ago?
anyway I agree with you. I mean I get why the law is that and all..a lot of people arn't mature enough to make a good decision untill they are a bit older. I understod politics younger and I know other people...didn't. But I get what you mean. And no I wouldn't want a 6 year old to have say in who would lead our country.

[sammi rules you]

yea, there are some younger people who have the same experience and intelligence as some older people, but most don't. so no, not really.

[sadolakced acid]

i am taxed every time i buy something.

i am taxed if i get a summer job

i cannot vote

this is taxation without representation.

i'm angry

i need to throw someone's tea in a harbor.

who wants to help?

[innovation]

but you can represent, derrington. you can start a petition, start an organization, start a movement, even! you could lobby in congress (except you live a little far away for that.. a girl from my school's FBLA lobbied over in D.C. for HIV/AIDS funding). you can campaign for a candidate or a cause. you can write an essay or article about a strong cause and have it published in the newspaper. you could write a letter to a government official. clearly, voting is not the only way to "represent."

[pAtRiCk_sTar]

Welll...I'm not seeing any major issues on age discrimination. There's not really anything people under 18 or 21 or 13 or whatever the problem, "needs" to do. I don't know..like others said, it also depends on your maturity, but, you can't expect every kid to automatically understand the circumstances.

[f4113n]

people generalize too much. maybe theres a brilliant 14-year-old arguing with a dumbass 38-year-old about something. regardless of who is correct, 99.99999% of people will side with the dumbass adult, because nobody listens to a maniac-depressive, psychopathic, hormone-ridden teen (which is what we all are, according to know-it-all, mature adults).

but then again, some people are much more mature than their peers (or vice versa). so how do you judge mental maturity? theres no real way, and the only way that society today can do it is by looking at the person's physical age. it sux, but anyone who can come up with a better system, please let me know

[picaso_smile]

Of course there's age discrimination... along with many many other types. Prejudice is everywhere. I think it' s part of human nature.

We judge young people to be too inexperienced and old people too senial.

[sadolakced acid]

oh, but the americans were represented before the revolution.

the british stance was they could tell thier friends in britian how to vote.

but no, they still thought that was apt reason to have a revolution.

anyways: more to the point of age discrimination:

It is illegal for old people, then it is illegal for young people.

students need to set a national skip day when they all go protest this.

[demolished]

We're doing something that is best for all of us. I think it's a great idea because there is alot of people who will do drugs when they are very very young .. that's why we have age restrictions ..

[yukichan]

I think that's true. If you were talking to someone online who you thought was 15ish and you realized they were 8 or something, would you keep talking to them?

i agree...

[Aesirus]

There's age discrimination everywhere. Note that this isn't a bad thing.

The word discrimination has been so weighed down with negative connotations, that people try to avoid it whenever possible. This is a bad thing.

I've proposed a bill to the PA State House titled the "Americans With No Abilities Act", which builds on the successes of its predecessors, the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", which everyone praises but apparently no one has read, and the "Americans With Disabilities Act", which is almost as ludicrous as the AWNAA. The AWNAA will extend the protections offered to Americans by barring discrimination based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, financial status, disability, and, of course, merit.

[Nashvixen]

i am taxed every time i buy something.
i am taxed if i get a summer job
i cannot vote
this is taxation without representation.
i'm angry
i need to throw someone's tea in a harbor.
who wants to help?

Awesome point. never thought of it that way.

We're doing something that is best for all of us. I think it's a great idea because there is alot of people who will do drugs when they are very very young .. that's why we have age restrictions ..

Okay, right. trying isn't the same as habitually using. i'm sure there are a few ppl in office that have "tried". and supposedly, "they turned out okay". I can't accept that explanation.

There's age discrimination everywhere. Note that this isn't a bad thing.
The word discrimination has been so weighed down with negative connotations, that people try to avoid it whenever possible. This is a bad thing.
I've proposed a bill to the PA State House titled the "Americans With No Abilities Act", which builds on the successes of its predecessors, the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", which everyone praises but apparently no one has read, and the "Americans With Disabilities Act", which is almost as ludicrous as the AWNAA. The AWNAA will extend the protections offered to Americans by barring discrimination based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, financial status, disability, and, of course, merit.

Okay, well, you do realize that the way in which ppl on this debate are using the term "discrimination" is meant more so as "prejudice". So let's think of it that way if you prefer...
exactly how do they plan to bar discrimination based on these reasons? even though women have equal rights as men now, we still are discriminated and "pre-judged". men still get better pay in some situations (especially male college professors with the same degree in the same area as a female college professors). That's just an example.

[Aesirus]

"Men get higher pay than women" is quite possibly the worst proof of sexism that exists.

When a company hires a woman, it must pay the woman for maternity leave, for the greater tendency among women to retire earlier than men, work fewer hours, and take greater advantage of medical benefits.

Thus, there are many hidden costs in hiring a woman. If a company hires a man, a $50,000 salary plus $10,000 in benefits means $50,000 in salary, and $5,000 in benefits. If a comapny hires a woman, it means $50,000 in salary, $10,000 in benefits, $50,000 for a year's paid maternity leave as mandated by law in several states, not to mention thousands more in the fact that women, on average, work fewer hours. Thus, a company will have to pay women less than men, or not hire women at all.

That isn't prejudice, that's minding the hidden costs.

Prejudice isn't always a bad thing. A movie clerk is going to ask someone who looks like a teenager for ID, but not someone who looks 50. That is prejudice against people who look young, but once again, is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Nashvixen]

"Men get higher pay than women" is quite possibly the worst proof of sexism that exists.
When a company hires a woman, it must pay the woman for maternity leave, for the greater tendency among women to retire earlier than men, work fewer hours, and take greater advantage of medical benefits.
Thus, there are many hidden costs in hiring a woman. If a company hires a man, a $50,000 salary plus $10,000 in benefits means $50,000 in salary, and $5,000 in benefits. If a comapny hires a woman, it means $50,000 in salary, $10,000 in benefits, $50,000 for a year's paid maternity leave as mandated by law in several states, not to mention thousands more in the fact that women, on average, work fewer hours. Thus, a company will have to pay women less than men, or not hire women at all.
That isn't prejudice, that's minding the hidden costs.
Prejudice isn't always a bad thing. A movie clerk is going to ask someone who looks like a teenager for ID, but not someone who looks 50. That is prejudice against people who look young, but once again, is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't think so... You see if there was a woman who didn't want children (therefore didn't need maternity leave), should she still get lower pay just because there's some chance? Even if she's celebate? That doesn't make sense in this instance.
Not hiring women at all is sex discrimination.
You can call it "minding hidden costs", but notice, this doesn't apply to all people. So, you see your proof can't always be truthful either. Tendancy doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
Prejudice is a bad thing, but discrimination is not. If a teenager isn't allowed in a certain movie, there may be reason. Plus, 50-year-olds don't "tend" to go to limited-admission movies that a 17-year-old couldn't go to. Discrimination is like categorizing, which isn't always bad. It helps our brains interpret how a person may behave, by how they look or a trait about them. Prejudice is pre-judging them, similar to discrimination, but it means, "irrational suspicion or unreasonable preconceived convictions".

[Aesirus]

You can call it "minding hidden costs", but notice, this doesn't apply to all people. So, you see your proof can't always be truthful either. Tendancy doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

Many women make more than their husbands. It is a tendency for women to make less money, just as it is a tendency for there to be hidden costs of hiring women as opposed to men.

I don't think so... You see if there was a woman who didn't want children (therefore didn't need maternity leave), should she still get lower pay just because there's some chance? Even if she's celebate? That doesn't make sense in this instance.

There are more laws governing workplace safety when women are involved. The fact is that there are hidden costs of hiring women. Maternity pay is the single biggest one, but there are smaller ones that tend to justify giving women lower pay. It's still true that women, for the most part, work shorter hours and use benefits more often. Thus, for the most part, they have lower salaries. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, and those women generally make salaries that are just as high as comparable male salaries, or almost that high.

Not hiring women at all is sex discrimination.

Not necessarily. If companies are forced to pay women equally as men, then they will hire men out of economic logic, not sex discrimination. Similarly, a company that produces a product that might require a certain sex -- an NFL franchise, for example, will hire more men than women. Or companies that do things that are physically demanding might find MORE qualified men than women. Thus, they will obviously hire more men.


There was one point that I didn't bring up. One major reason women make less than men is because more women go into lower-paying fields. The highest paying college degrees are chemical engineering and biochemistry, both of which are predominantely male. Whereas many lower paying degrees have predominately female student bodies. According to TIME magazine, the number one degree that female PhDs had was psychology, which pays a lot lower than engineering.

So if more women choose to go into lower-paying fields, then they will obviously be making less money. That doesn't prove sexism at all.