🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@thatguyoverthere

im not disagreeing with you, im sincerely asking... if i lock my kid in a basement at 40, as long as nature lets me get away with it, then it should be legal?

@thatguyoverthere so what does that mean? Like if i have a hild and keep him locked in the basement it should be legal to do so evne if im still doing it to my child when he is 40 or 50?

@thatguyoverthere if the govt didnt get involved how would the parents get the authority?

@thatguyoverthere

It can and is... the government determines when you are eligible... the criteria they use is age. Morover the government determines when you arent of age the right to decide for you goes to your parents, it is the government that transfers your right to the parent and enforces, ergo it is both.

> In my proposed solution parents of an 8 yo who think he might pass a driving yrst could approve.

This is indeed a good counter example... normally with **most** things its as I said the government apply age as a limit on when your rights transfer to the parents.

But as you point out some things the government doesnt let the parent decide at all...

> As far as elder care goes I think it does largely rest on the family.

while family may encourage them not to drive if they cant, ultimately legally they cant do much unless they prove they are a risk in some way. That isnt easy.

Neither of these solutions in either case is acceltable to me.

@mjambon While certasinly not the norm gifted children are able to read as early as 2 years old. My mom often brags how I was able to read at 2 years old... I was also fully capable of holding a conversation at that age...

Should I and children like me, be allowed alcohol? I dont know if at 2 i actually asked but it would not surprise me if i saw my grandfather drinking one that at 2 I might ask to have some also.

@antares I would not pick any of those three... VP Harris has an abysmal record of abusing women and people in general... RFK Jr. is a wackadoo conspiracy theorist....

As for trump... well I'll quote him to address the problem with him:

"Water, big water, ocean water" -- Trump

@mjambon Ok, so how would we apply that to a 2 year old who wants to drink alcohol and who doesnt have a track record of screwing up?

@aschatermees No worries, it was a good discussion, I appreciated it. Have a wonderful night.

@mjambon

That sounds like a lot of work... good thing you arent debating the issue then huh? :)

@aschatermees

> We would need reconsider the ethics on (now common) use of fire arms to protect wealth, power and property, as these things contradict emancipation and underline privilege.

I dont even want to touch the tangent of property or wealth protection.. it is a valid but separate issue that we could debate if it should or shouldn't be protected to shoot someone trying to destroy your financial livelihood or not.

> Treading fine lines here... What amounts to one's right to defend?

The logic here is very simple for me actually... If someone is trying to kill someone else, in almost every circumstances.. you will not have a cop near by, you will not have the ability to call 911, you will not have the luxury of waiting the 5 - 20+ minutes for the cop to arrive... Either you survive or die the encounter 99% of the time and there is no system in place, not cops or anything else, that will effectively come to your rescue.

A gun, and other tools to defend yourself with deadly force (the more effective the better) is in those situations the only thing that is likely to prevent your death or rape. Cops at best might find the guy and arrest him after your corpse is long cold, and thats if your lucky... that does you no good as a corpse.

So as long as there is **any** chance, even a single case of violent crime a year. You have a right to own a gun if you beleive you have a right to protection from violence. Anything else is a huge violation of both legal right (in the USA) and natural right (to be free to self defense and free from bodily harm)

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

@thatguyoverthere

I dont have a good answer for how, I just know that the way we do it now is a grave injustice and is not the way.

What i know is whatever system we have in check to see if someone is mentally capable of exercising a right, that system should not rely on assumptions around an arbitrary age threshold.

If for example a car requires a license... as long as you can demonstrate you can drive a car succcessfully and pass all the tests successfully then regardless of your age you should have access to it.

What this really exposes is the unanswered question in society... if we are so worried about an 8 year old driving a car and killing someone even if they can pass the test, because they arent responsible enough... then why arent we equally scared about a 40 year old with mental limitations who has the same maturity as that 8 year old... why arent we protecting against that?

@noiq

I have not met a single person, republican or democrat, who doesnt agree with this... some people may think the exact number should change slightly up or down.. .but by in large they agree.

Are you saying you think a 6 month old baby should have the right to drink alcohol at a bar?

@thatguyoverthere

> who determines mental capacity?

Right now? The government... they look at your age and use it to assume mental capacity.. <18 you dont have it... I argue that **if** they use that logic then it only makes sense if you use the same logic to deny it >70 too, since there is decline at both ends of the spectrum.

If we agree this sounds like a really stupid and unjust way to do it, then I dont have the answer, but obviously that answer isnt "the parents" because thats what we have now.

> Why should parents who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests of their kids in mind not have any influence or say?

Why should adult children of 70+ year olds who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests for their infirmed parents in mind not have any influence or say?

> They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice

They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money caring for their infirmed parents. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice

@aschatermees

Half sarcastic/joke indeed, you weren't wrong... but my point is this.. if your going to argue its privilage then i will argue sincerely to make it free for everyone if that is true... So **if** it truely is privilage, then easily solved, so its a moot point anyway.

> My final statement however bases on the reality that guns are NOT issued in accordance to feminin, or any other kind of emancipation. Guns require sale.

The problem is you said guns are **always** privilage.. in reality what you mean is they are only privilage when they are for sale, and when the poor arent given help to aquire them...

So if you want to argue guns are privilege, then fine, give them for free, either privilege isnt a problem at all (in which case you can keep selling them) or it is (in which case taxes can just give it to the poor)... either way the argument that guns are always privilege, as if you cant produce equal access to guns is untrue.

> And how would that idea work out? Should we consider emancipating minors too? Should we emancipate minorities? Invalides? Where would we draw the line as to who gets to equalize their right to self defence?

Everyone should have access to guns, and if you want to address the class issue, then everyone who cant afford them should get one. If minors should get one or not is up to the parents, and ultimately the liability on them... depend on the child.

A man with a gun and a woman with a gun are on fairly equal footing, far more so than any other configuration... when everyone has guns physical strength is a much smaller factor and thus an equalizing factor.. ther eis no need to select who gets it and who doesnt.

@BenAveling @ErikUden @Elleaster

@thatguyoverthere

Then by that logic once someone ages over 70 they should loose all those rights as well and should be passed to whoever their next of kin is between 18 - 70...

If the logic is "the parent should be a dictator over their kid and decide what rights the kid can or cant have cause they are too young to decide for themselves"... thent he same should be true over 70, after that age your too old to decide for yourself by the same logic.

I would argue the parents shouldnt decide any more than the states should decide... any child at **any** age who can clearly articulate their desire to exercise a right, and can past all the prerequisites the state normally has to access that right, then they should have it.

Obviously this brings up weird questions like "should an 8 year old be able to buy a gun"... and I would answer "no more or less so than a 40 year old with the same mental capacity as the 8 year old would"

@mjambon Hahaha carry on.

When i was young i was very mature and ahead for my time (Grew up int he ghetto on welfare but by 15 had enough income to rent my own home and move, making 100K at 15).. I always resented how adults, who clearly were sometimes less mature than me and I had my life together more, would try to tell me they had a right to control me because im not old enough yet..

I mean legally true of course, but ever since I was very yougn this felt like an unjustice... As an adult now my views are we shouldnt judge anyone by age, but rather ability, and even children should have autonomy so long as they can prove they are capable.

@thatguyoverthere hypocrisy seems to be ubiquitous these days.