age descrimination Options

[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.