Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[quinnr]

What I don't agree with is that parents have the legal ability to do nearly whatever the heck they feel like. If parents can force their kids to take drug tests, should they be able to force medical care on a teenager who does not want it? Or forcibly send them to a psychiatrist? Or something like in this story?

Parents can not do “whatever they feel like”. Abusing children is still illegal.

Children and “teens” have not spent very much time living. As such, it can be expected that they are not yet very good at it. You may be the exception—you just might be a perfect little child genius, but, unfortunately, it is difficult and inefficient for school administration to investigate the mental resources of every student to see which can govern themselves. The same is true for the state. General rules are the only solution.

That's why there was a 'nearly' right before that.

So why did you offer a link to a clearly-illegal incident of a child being abused at a Utah facility?

I just don't see how forcing someone else to do something when said person is completely capable (even the stupidest people in the school still know what a drug test is) of having informed consent themselves is silly.

The drug test is for the purpose of catching drug users. Yes, they may be very well know what a drug test is, but it does not mean that they will take one if they happen to be using drugs. Assuming that anyone will voluntarily assist in capturing themselves is silly.

If you want to require everyone to take drug tests, whatever. If you're going to say it's 'voluntary', though, it should actually be voluntary.

You have not been objecting to a mislabeled test—the majority of your distaste has been about the fact that your parents have the right to make you take it.

Because there's obviously some sort of issue going on if that many parents are able to send their children to such places and those places not being shut down immediately.

My distaste is mostly that minors are treated as items with little to no rights until they hit a magical age, at which point they can qualify as actual people. Sure, I disagree with multiple parts of it, but that'd be the main idea that I don't like about this whole thing.

[Fenrir]

Because there's obviously some sort of issue going on if that many parents are able to send their children to such places and those places not being shut down immediately.

I agree. Such illegal institutions should be investigated and terminated, but that is not what you had said.

What I don't agree with is that parents have the legal ability to do nearly whatever the heck they feel like.

You are objecting to their legal ability, not the presence of illegal institutions, but you offered an illegal institution as an example.

My distaste is mostly that minors are treated as items with little to no rights until they hit a magical age, at which point they can qualify as actual people. Sure, I disagree with multiple parts of it, but that'd be the main idea that I don't like about this whole thing.

They have fewer rights, yes, but no one is legally permitted to harm them. They have little rights because they are still children. They just have not had enough experience with living yet to be trusted further. It is as much for their own sake as anyone else. How else should it work?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've already typed on this issue about as well as I can.

Make no mistake, children's rights in the United States are a fucking joke. Even the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the idea that minors do not have constitutional protection. More and more school districts are taking up the old corporate line of "You're always an Employee, on duty or off." except with students. In my district, they will suspend you if they can find proof of somthing done off-campus that violates an on-campus rule. It's a goddamn Class C Felony to be on the property of a school you don't go to at any time if you're still attending school, and the same for being at the school you do go to if it isn't school hours. I've seen people at my school impressed into community service or suspended for the heinous crime of being attacked by one of the "thug life" assholes who also attend my school. Even if they don't fight back, or even have the chance to do so. It's worse than goddamn Soviet Russia for the USA's children.

Oh yeah, and these assholes also have the utter gall to blast AC during the dead of winter, and then threaten us with suspensions if we wear anything on our heads to keep warm. I swear, I'm organizing a protest if they do that shit again.

They have fewer rights, yes, but no one is legally permitted to harm them.

Their parents are permitted to harm them so long as they do not attract the attention of Social Services. Plenty of schools in the South also retain corporal punishment to this day, although many in urban areas forgo it.

They have little rights because they are still children. They just have not had enough experience with living yet to be trusted further. It is as much for their own sake as anyone else. How else should it work?

"You don't have to earn your rights through being alive an arbitrary number of years" is how it should work.

[Sowelu]

Parents can /absolutely/ mandate a drug test to kids under 18, who are under their guardianship.

Nobody has a 'right' to extracurriculars.

Even in a drug ridden area, parents can still say "You will not test my kids for drugs" and the kids cannot be removed from classes.  What is the problem here?  Is it that parents' tax money is funding those extracurriculars anyway, because in that case go talk to your state legislature.

[Fenrir]

I've already typed on this issue about as well as I can.

Make no mistake, children's rights in the United States are a fucking joke. Even the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the idea that minors do not have constitutional protection. More and more school districts are taking up the old corporate line of "You're always an Employee, on duty or off." except with students. In my district, they will suspend you if they can find proof of somthing done off-campus that violates an on-campus rule. It's a goddamn Class C Felony to be on the property of a school you don't go to at any time if you're still attending school, and the same for being at the school you do go to if it isn't school hours. I've seen people at my school impressed into community service or suspended for the heinous crime of being attacked by one of the "thug life" assholes who also attend my school. Even if they don't fight back, or even have the chance to do so. It's worse than goddamn Soviet Russia for the USA's children.

Oh yeah, and these assholes also have the utter gall to blast AC during the dead of winter, and then threaten us with suspensions if we wear anything on our heads to keep warm. I swear, I'm organizing a protest if they do that shit again.

I must admit that I do not know if minor’s rights are sufficient in schools, as I have never attended one, but I am defending the idea of restricting minor’s rights as a whole and in this particular instance.

They have fewer rights, yes, but no one is legally permitted to harm them.

Their parents are permitted to harm them so long as they do not attract the attention of Social Services.

So I suppose that I am permitted to rob a house as long as I do not attract the attention of the police? That is silly; we all know that the government is not omnipotent and can not uphold the law every time.

fakeedit: Ninja’d by Sowelu. Yes, what he said too.

[quinnr]

Because there's obviously some sort of issue going on if that many parents are able to send their children to such places and those places not being shut down immediately.

I agree. Such illegal institutions should be investigated and terminated, but that is not what you had said.

Parents shouldn't be allowed to forcibly make their offspring do such things..these places still exist (last time I checked, albeit it was two or three years ago), and parents are still forcibly taking their children to them.

What I don't agree with is that parents have the legal ability to do nearly whatever the heck they feel like.

You are objecting to their legal ability, not the presence of illegal institutions, but you offered an illegal institution as an example.

Again, the places still exist, and for them to exist, parents have to be able to make their children go to them.

My distaste is mostly that minors are treated as items with little to no rights until they hit a magical age, at which point they can qualify as actual people. Sure, I disagree with multiple parts of it, but that'd be the main idea that I don't like about this whole thing.

They have fewer rights, yes, but no one is legally permitted to harm them. They have little rights because they are still children. They just have not had enough experience with living yet to be trusted further. It is as much for their own sake as anyone else. How else should it work?

Nobody is allowed to harm them, directly, yet there are plenty of other rights that they do lack. People are very capable of understanding the repercussions of medical procedures and are capable of making informed decisions WAY before the magical year of 18. There isn't any reason to withhold so many rights for that long of a time.

Parents can /absolutely/ mandate a drug test to kids under 18, who are under their guardianship.

Nobody has a 'right' to extracurriculars.

Even in a drug ridden area, parents can still say "You will not test my kids for drugs" and the kids cannot be removed from classes.  What is the problem here?  Is it that parents' tax money is funding those extracurriculars anyway, because in that case go talk to your state legislature.

This isn't about extracurriculars. Tax money is paying for the drug tests, but not for the extra-curricula (extra-fees to do any of them), although that isn't really relevant.

Really, I don't see how you can force someone to do something until they're a certain set-in-stone age. Any other human over that age can not be legally forced against their will to do something like this by someone else. Sure, some things may require it, but you aren't forced by someone else to do it, at pain of having to stay in school for another year.

[Neonivek]

My distaste is mostly that minors are treated as items with little to no rights until they hit a magical age, at which point they can qualify as actual people. Sure, I disagree with multiple parts of it, but that'd be the main idea that I don't like about this whole thing.

Or respect...

Honestly I am still pissed off about Martial arts AND Shows for children and how bad or manipulative they are.

[Sowelu]

But the schools aren't forcing anything drug-test wise. It's the parents if anything.  Even school is optional...your parents can choose to home-school you.  You can join a non-school-related chess club at your local library. The ONLY person with power over a child in this argument is the parent; they hold remedies for all the other situations.

Guardians need some power over kids.  And when you think about it, if you do not homeschool your kids, you are granting another entity that power where school is concerned.  Nobody should argue that SOMEONE needs the power to enforce attendance; either a homeschooling parent or a school official.  That is forcing a kid to do something, and is necessary.

[Bauglir]

I'm okay with parents having power of attorney over their children (which, as I understand it, is the power to make contracts and things exactly like this in place of their children), and while a magic age is kind of a ridiculous band-aid, I'm not aware of any better method here (you can't exactly institute an adulthood test, I'd wager) for determining when a person assumes that power. Probably some power to issue curfews, curtail freedom of assembly (your parents can dictate who you can spend time with), and so on, because all of that falls under the general purview of being a parent. Other'n that, though, I'd really think children should have the same rights as adults, and in all of those cases it's the parents who assume control over those rights, not a government body.

Schools probably would need some specific exceptions (assuming some of those powers, but only for the time the child is literally at the school, and always subject to revocation by the parent) in order to function effectively, but even the current state of things is absurdly restrictive (see MSH's post). Naturally, this needs to be accompanied by an effective emancipation system and child abuse prevention system, but I don't know how effective the current versions of that are so I can't really comment.

[Fenrir]

Because there's obviously some sort of issue going on if that many parents are able to send their children to such places and those places not being shut down immediately.

I agree. Such illegal institutions should be investigated and terminated, but that is not what you had said.

Parents shouldn't be allowed to forcibly make their offspring do such things..these places still exist (last time I checked, albeit it was two or three years ago), and parents are still forcibly taking their children to them.

What I don't agree with is that parents have the legal ability to do nearly whatever the heck they feel like.

You are objecting to their legal ability, not the presence of illegal institutions, but you offered an illegal institution as an example.

Again, the places still exist, and for them to exist, parents have to be able to make their children go to them.

Kindly cease tossing this odiferous red herring. You posted in objection to the legal abilities of parents. Illegal institutions and the parents’ ability to use them is not legal ability, so this not relevent to the thread or our argument.

Nobody is allowed to harm them, directly, yet there are plenty of other rights that they do lack. People are very capable of understanding the repercussions of medical procedures and are capable of making informed decisions WAY before the magical year of 18. There isn't any reason to withhold so many rights for that long of a time.

I have interacted with too many children to believe that.

Really, I don't see how you can force someone to do something until they're a certain set-in-stone age. Any other human over that age can not be legally forced against their will to do something like this by someone else. Sure, some things may require it, but you aren't forced by someone else to do it, at pain of having to stay in school for another year.

It is this way because people over that age are presumed to have enough intellect and emotional maturity to make their own way through life. You can object to the particular age chosen, but you had better offer some kind of reputable study to support your assertion if you want to convice anyone of anything, and it would likely be a good idea to do that research for your own sake as well.

[quinnr]

Nobody is allowed to harm them, directly, yet there are plenty of other rights that they do lack. People are very capable of understanding the repercussions of medical procedures and are capable of making informed decisions WAY before the magical year of 18. There isn't any reason to withhold so many rights for that long of a time.

I have interacted with too many children to believe that.

Of what ages? I don't know who you know, but a vast majority of people in the Sophmore and higher classes in my high school most definitely understand cause and effect, how to read, and other such basic skills required to make decisions. I'm not saying that 6-year olds should have power of attorney, but parents shouldn't be able to forcibly make their children do things on pain of potentially ruining the rest of their life by causing them to flunk out of High School. Sure, you can ground/take away things from your child, but that's just not the same.

[ed boy]

There is a lot of difference between short term and long term cause and effect. People get one very quickly, and the other takes a lot longer.

[Montague]

Well, they do have laws allowing the emancipation of minors, although convincing a judge to use them is really less likely to happen then it should be.

[Fenrir]

...parents shouldn't be able to forcibly make their children do things on pain of potentially ruining the rest of their life by causing them to flunk out of High School.

It only ruins their life if they refuse the test, so what is so horrible about a drug test that they would refuse? Unless they were on drugs, I see little reason that they would.

[quinnr]

Hmm, the age of consent is typically 16 years old in most states. So yeah, teenagers can have sex with whomever but not make even basic choices effecting their lives, without their parents approval?

...parents shouldn't be able to forcibly make their children do things on pain of potentially ruining the rest of their life by causing them to flunk out of High School.

It only ruins their life if they refuse the test, so what is so horrible about a drug test that they would refuse? Unless they were on drugs, I see little reason that they would.

Perhaps because of the principal of the thing? I know I certainly wouldn't take kindly to being pulled out of class to pee in a cup.