Bee Hoon Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Because it boggles the mind:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Probably b/c some people wish to rip someone else a new one every once in awhile, even if only for sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Actually, this should be a decision the parents make, because as irresponsible as parents tend to be these days, teens are even worse. However, I agree it should be tested before it sees widespread use. It should be a decision NOT MADE AT ALL without the consent of the person it's being made about. People should NEVER, absolutely 100% NEVER have any medical procedure done to them without their consent. There are of course, exceptions when the capability to consent comes into question. However, being a "teen" is neither a mental disorder, a physical handicap, or a disease that renders people under the age of 18 incapable of making a decision for themselves. Not everyone falling into the age grouping of 13 to 19 are the same, they are not all equal, and the mental facilities of many are far more mature than those of many others. An interesting statistic I would be curious to find out would be if the girls who are promiscuous are really the ones getting pregnant. If my friend is any example, it was her first time having sex, and she happened to be drunk, no condom, and oops, baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 @QLiveur, you try that and let us know how it goes;p Bear in mind that nerves...don't heal very well, to put it mildly. You do know that I was being sarcastic, don't you? Still, neither proposition that I put forth was any more ridiculous than the topic of this thread. I can't help but think that life would be far simpler if humanity just divided like amoebae. Maybe the Solarians had the right idea after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 You do know that I was being sarcastic, don't you? Still, neither proposition that I put forth was any more ridiculous than the topic of this thread. I can't help but think that life would be far simpler if humanity just divided like amoebae. Maybe the Solarians had the right idea after all. NO... you mean having a bunch of Britney running around is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee Hoon Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Qliveur, 'twas mutual;) But genetic variation is gooood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 ^Shhh, don't tell that to the Royal family (or most of WV). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 People under 18/21 don't have very strong rights, under the law. For example: Limited freedom of speech: When A teacher in school tells you to be quiet, you have to be quiet, because you're under 18. If you're not, he/she can give you a detention or a pink slip. No drinking under 21. No unsupervised driving under 16. You have to take out the trash and do your chores your parents tell you to, or else you'll get grounded. Children are often less punished than adults for major crimes, such as if a child commits murder or soemthing, in the trial they get their lawyer/attorney usually goes for the insanity plea, do to the fact that children are considered to naturally not be mentally sane at their age. Etc, etc... Basically under the law, children/teens have very limited rights. They are subject to the adults' authority, as the majority of kids/teens in their age group is considered to be mentally unstable and irrational. This is somewhat scientifically true too. Children's and teens' brains are developign during their age, children are naturally insane without proper discipline and teaching due to their not fully developed brains, and teens often are insane and irrational from hormones. As adults, most adults are rational, as their brains are fully developed, which gives them more complex thinking capability. This is not true to everyone however, but it is to the majority of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 What are you talking about? You're talking about 'fluffy' rights. You know, optional, additional right. Saying that people under 21 can't drink doesn't mean you should remove their right to decide what happens to their body. Seriously. What do you actually know about the law, and which parts are you making up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 What on earth is all this? Limited freedom of speech: When A teacher in school tells you to be quiet, you have to be quiet, because you're under 18. Teachers reserve the right to expel students from their class regardless of the age in question. How on earth do you think college professors keep their classrooms in order? By asking 'be quiet' with a please at the end? No unsupervised driving under 16. Letting children drive before their motor skills are fully developed is laughable. You have to take out the trash and do your chores your parents tell you to, or else you'll get grounded. That's not a law, that's the social contract in action on a small level. If you'd rather not give up some of your time to help your parents out, there's no reason to expect them to give something similar up. (The money spent feeding and clothing you.) Children are often less punished than adults for major crimes, such as if a child commits murder or soemthing, in the trial they get their lawyer/attorney usually goes for the insanity plea, do to the fact that children are considered to naturally not be mentally sane at their age. No, it's because they aren't yet cognitively developed to the point they can distinct between right and wrong. As that fact applies to the majority of them, it's logically inconsistent of you to refer to a common state of mind as a deviating one. Further, there's enough blanket in that statement to warm Nepal for a year. Have you read anything about the juvenile justice system? Their rights and punishments vary greatly depending on their age (I think the general categories are 0-7, 8-15 and 16+), and there are the gods know how many minor laws in regards to specific ages. teens often are insane See above statement on logical inconsistency. If they are all 'insane', as you put it, from unavoidable factors that come with their age, it's no longer insanity. You cannot refer to a normal state of mind as an abnormal one. most adults are rational Aha. Ahahaha. Ahahahaha. No. Cognitively developed, for the most part yes. Rational? Hell no. Seriously. What do you actually know about the law, and which parts are you making up? QFE. I fail to see the relevance of any of this to state-sponsored sterilization. (Such a decision should be the parents' at the absolute most.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Why, Web Rider? We do lots of things without asking for the person most affected's consent. Like, for example, abortion. And you can hem and haw about how they may or may not have the mental faculties to not want to die, but the fact remains that you're taking a living creature's life without it's consent. This isn't so bad, you're just denying a stupid move, not preforming a contract hit on a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Jeez. I was actually expecting a good reaction to the post I just made. But you have to go and tear it apart, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't describe it in more complex terms. The point I was trying to make is that teens are subject to whatever adults decide. I know how the Juvenile Justice System works, and as I mentioned, with children, the insanity plea is often used for trying to win trials on children committing crimes. The reason you must have taken my post the complete opposite way of my intentions was probably because I didn't refer to the limitedness of childs' minds as cognitively undeveloped, which was because I had not heard of that term until now, but as I attempted to describe, it means the same thing. Certain things I mentioned were not laws, sorry for not making that clear; but my whole point is that children and teens are subject to the decision and command of the adults, even if it seems morally wrong. I have decided to change my position in this debate, as you said, it should at most be the parent's decision whether or not to sterilize their child, either that or not doing it at all, as doing this won't solve the problem, and can bring up even more problems. I also revoke my statement that 'the majority of adults are rational'. Also, when I said 'no unsupervised driving under 16', that meant that it's important that there is adult training the teenager how to drive before they get their license at 16, but of course, no driving at all before 15! You took that one way too literally. (This was mostly directed at Emporer Devon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Jeez. I was actually expecting a good reaction to the post I just made. But you have to go and tear it apart, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't describe it in more complex terms. Doy you now? I'm sure you're quite the attorney yourself. Plus, we're talking about the british laws here. I have decided to change my position in this debate, as you said, it should at most be the parent's decision whether or not to sterilize their child, either that or not doing it at all, as doing this won't solve the problem, and can bring up even more problems. Let's suppose, for a moment, that this sterilization techniques applies for men as well. And let's assume you're male and under 18 (Which I believe, is right according to other of your posts). Would it be fine if your parents, for your sake of course, decided to sterilize you for life without your consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Oh... I must have forgotten that. British laws, not U.S laws... My bad. Yeah I don't know jack about british laws, so I guess you're right. Your arguement has swayed me. I agree with you, this sterlilization thing is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Oh... I must have forgotten that. British laws, not U.S laws... My bad. Yeah I don't know jack about british laws, so I guess you're right. Your arguement has swayed me. I agree with you, this sterlilization thing is a bad idea. There's hope for you yet, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Jeez. I was actually expecting a good reaction to the post I just made. Lulz. But you have to go and tear it apart, assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't describe it in more complex terms. The complexity of the terms you use to describe your suppositions is irrelevant. They are wrong, regardless of the terminology involved. The point I was trying to make is that teens are subject to whatever adults decide. They are subject to what their country's government, their schools and their family decide, not simply what 'adults' do. But I can understand what you're trying to say. For point of reference it's extraordinarily common knowledge (even amongst a population as uninformed as ours), and only makes it look like you're treating the people in this thread as children. I know how the Juvenile Justice System works, It's not capitalized. and as I mentioned, with children, the insanity plea is often used No, the plea used is that as minors they are unable to differentiate between right and wrong. A plea of insanity does make the same claim, but the name should give you the knock-off that it's meant for people who usually are able to see a difference between the two. The reason you must have taken my post the complete opposite way of my intentions was probably because I didn't refer to the limitedness of childs' minds as cognitively undeveloped, No, it's because you're making erroneous statements which you continue to pass off as fact. I had not heard of that term until now, but as I attempted to describe, it means the same thing. The terminology used is irrelevant as long as the meaning is the same. my whole point is that children and teens are subject to the decision and command of the adults, See above reply on common knowledge. even if it seems morally wrong. At what instance is this? I have decided to change my position in this debate, as you said, it should at most be the parent's decision whether or not to sterilize their child, Well, at least you're open-minded about the topic. Also, when I said 'no unsupervised driving under 16', that meant that it's important that there is adult training the teenager how to drive There is no direct correlation between those two statements. You took that one way too literally. Is there a way I should view the content of your posts other than by the exact statements made in them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Why, Web Rider? We do lots of things without asking for the person most affected's consent. Like, for example, abortion. And you can hem and haw about how they may or may not have the mental faculties to not want to die, but the fact remains that you're taking a living creature's life without it's consent. This isn't so bad, you're just denying a stupid move, not preforming a contract hit on a baby. mhmm, mhmmm, yeah...mhmmm, oh...wait, what were you saying? I was actually staying on topic, and anything that would derail from that point just goes in one ear and out the other. We kill far smarter things than fetuses all the time. It's a little hard for me to hear you defend a fetus while you eat that burger. while we're still off topic, do quote me if you're going to respond to me a page later. even if it seems morally wrong Actually, no. Children are not subject to morally wrong, or seemingly morally wrong decisions of adults. This is why children cannot be locked up in a closet without the parents getting in trouble. This is why it's not legal to molest kids or beat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Cows aren't human, thus it's not homocide, for one thing. Also, I bet my fetus will do better than your cow on an internet IQ test. Goo is the answer to at least one question usually. Moo is almost never the answer to any of the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Cows aren't human, thus it's not homocide, for one thing. Also, I bet my fetus will do better than your cow on an internet IQ test. Goo is the answer to at least one question usually. Moo is almost never the answer to any of the questions. Since when has intelligence justified whether one life is more important than another? Plants and many animals may not be able to do math, but I happen to like the fact they recycle the air and keep a natural cycle going when we aren't killing them. Animals feel pain, they can feel emotion. Your fetus's capability of that is debatable, and even that depends entirely on opinion and gestation period. And no, Goo is not an answer to this question. Anyway, why is this even being talked about in this thread? I thought this was about sterilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I have a feeling a point made about sentient potential of human fetuses if they are allowed to develope and become complete human beings from an old abortion debate thread is going to be made... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Anyway, why is this even being talked about in this thread? I thought this was about sterilization.Changing the subject when you have a weak argument has been a tactic of XPERT DEBATERS since forever Avery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 So, in summary, what Ctrl_Alt_Del's 'how would you feel if this was forced on you' argument seems to completely answer this thread's topic. Doing this sterlization against another person's will is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Meh. Who cares what's right and wrong anyway? Morality being relative is all the rage these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I care, as do many other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.