I’ll spell it out for you. I’m one of millions of random people online right now, there’s no way you actually care about me in particular. We’ve had a fairly nice conversation up to now where I have my opinion and you have yours but neither of us has convinced the other. So now, since you don’t have any good arguments against why we shouldn’t handle different milestones, rights, and privileges separately instead of lumping them together and giving them all at once, you are trying to find out where in particular I think individual milestones should be set so that you can argue about that instead, and frankly, I’m not interested in going off on a tangent with some random person on the Internet who likes to argue.
I haven’t made any arguments about a particular view just trying to understand yours. For whatever reason you’ve decided to dance around every question I ask. There has been no attempt on either of our parts to convince the other, I’ve only asked questions. Now you’re getting defensive about being called out for your refusal to have a discussion.
In order to understand your position on having different milestones it would be helpful to understand your reasoning for a few. Ie why do you think the drinking age should be … age to vote … Age for liability …
Saying you’d let the states figure it out is not giving an opinion it’s a cop out or an admission that you can’t articulate why.
In simple terms, because getting no rights until the government says you are an adult is just as stupid as getting the right to do everything when you the government says you are an adult. The specifics aren’t actually important in this context and if you don’t understand why, talking about specific instances isn’t going to help, it’s just going to be a distraction and I’m not on the mood to chase our tails in on a circle just because some random person isn’t satisfied with the conversation.
Finally a meaningful response even if you still won’t answer the questions.
Here’s why specifics matter. When ever you determine a person is liable, they are deemed capable of making decisions for them selves. To say you are not capable of handling alcohol but we will hold you responsible if you do is a contradiction. How do you justify that contradiction?
There’s a difference between permissiveness and liability. Let’s say a ten year old gets ahold of a gun and kills a parent. Are we not still going to hold them criminally liable? We also wouldn’t not charge an adult for the same crime just because they were old enough to legally own a gun.
Your murder analogy is a bit of a straw man, just about everyone is held responsible for their actions in a legal capacity even minors. On top of that you once again didn’t answer my question.
Liable adults are deemed to be competent, they are liable for all their actions criminally and civilly.
How can a person be deemed competent enough to be liable for all their actions but not competent enough to use tobacco, alcohol, own a firearm?
Strange, you you seem unable to articulate them
I’ll spell it out for you. I’m one of millions of random people online right now, there’s no way you actually care about me in particular. We’ve had a fairly nice conversation up to now where I have my opinion and you have yours but neither of us has convinced the other. So now, since you don’t have any good arguments against why we shouldn’t handle different milestones, rights, and privileges separately instead of lumping them together and giving them all at once, you are trying to find out where in particular I think individual milestones should be set so that you can argue about that instead, and frankly, I’m not interested in going off on a tangent with some random person on the Internet who likes to argue.
I haven’t made any arguments about a particular view just trying to understand yours. For whatever reason you’ve decided to dance around every question I ask. There has been no attempt on either of our parts to convince the other, I’ve only asked questions. Now you’re getting defensive about being called out for your refusal to have a discussion.
In order to understand your position on having different milestones it would be helpful to understand your reasoning for a few. Ie why do you think the drinking age should be … age to vote … Age for liability …
Saying you’d let the states figure it out is not giving an opinion it’s a cop out or an admission that you can’t articulate why.
In simple terms, because getting no rights until the government says you are an adult is just as stupid as getting the right to do everything when you the government says you are an adult. The specifics aren’t actually important in this context and if you don’t understand why, talking about specific instances isn’t going to help, it’s just going to be a distraction and I’m not on the mood to chase our tails in on a circle just because some random person isn’t satisfied with the conversation.
Finally a meaningful response even if you still won’t answer the questions.
Here’s why specifics matter. When ever you determine a person is liable, they are deemed capable of making decisions for them selves. To say you are not capable of handling alcohol but we will hold you responsible if you do is a contradiction. How do you justify that contradiction?
There’s a difference between permissiveness and liability. Let’s say a ten year old gets ahold of a gun and kills a parent. Are we not still going to hold them criminally liable? We also wouldn’t not charge an adult for the same crime just because they were old enough to legally own a gun.
Spoiler alert that actually happened… https://www.wpr.org/justice/charged-homicide-shooting-death-his-mother-10-year-old-being-tried-adult-some-legal-experts-say
My point is that while we reasonably think permission and liability should somehow be linked, they aren’t actually.
Your murder analogy is a bit of a straw man, just about everyone is held responsible for their actions in a legal capacity even minors. On top of that you once again didn’t answer my question.
Liable adults are deemed to be competent, they are liable for all their actions criminally and civilly.
How can a person be deemed competent enough to be liable for all their actions but not competent enough to use tobacco, alcohol, own a firearm?
You are going to have to ask a lawyer that one, but despite your incredulity, that’s how it is.
Once again you defer on explaining your opnion.