Berkeley v Marines

[7960]

So there are some options.

1. have 18 year olds not be considered adults and make their parents approve their contracts
or
2. have 18 year olds be adults and they can sign whatever they want.

I honestly don't give a rats ass about "recent brain research." It comes down to "when is someone responsible for his actions?" and as a society we've pretty much nailed 18 years old as the answer. If you want to change that to "early 20s" good luck.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

Brain research has shown that development of impulse-control mechanisms is not complete until the early 20s. That has large implications for this debate specifically.

While 18 year old men may be adults in the eyes of the law they are still not fully developed. This research sheds new light on the quintessential enlistment story involving somebody joining up in some sort of reaction to recent personal events.

impulse-control mechanism? What study are you referring to

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

I honestly don't give a rats ass about "recent brain research."

Yeah, pesky scientific data. Who needs relevant data to make an informed judgment about an issue!

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, pesky scientific data. Who needs relevant data to make an informed judgment about an issue!

Is it poor retention or ADHD that kept you from reading the rest?

It comes down to "when is someone responsible for his actions?" and as a society we've pretty much nailed 18 years old as the answer. If you want to change that to "early 20s" good luck.

[motivez]

Yeah, relevant scientific research that seeks to determine when someone has finished developing components critical to good decision making is totally useless for this debate.

I can completely understand why you wouldn't give a shit about it.*


















* Except for the fact that if you want to have a serious discussion about when [age wise] someone is responsible for their actions, understanding how brain function effects decision making skills and learning at what age that functionality is completely developed seems to be a very useful piece of information.

But except for that, I'm with you man. Down with the science. Up with arbitrary numbers.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

impulse-control mechanism? What study are you referring to

Studies of the prefrontal cortex. Here's an interview with somebody that released a study a few years ago.

frontline: inside the teenage brain: interviews: jay giedd, m.d. | PBS

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, relevant scientific research that seeks to determine when someone has finished developing components critical to good decision making is totally useless for this debate.

I can completely understand why you wouldn't give a shit about it.*


















* Except for the fact that if you want to have a serious discussion about when [age wise] someone is responsible for their actions, understanding how brain function effects decision making skills and learning at what age that functionality is completely developed seems to be a very useful piece of information.

But except for that, I'm with you man. Down with the science. Up with arbitrary numbers.

Yeah, fuck all that.

So your argument is an 18 year old isn't an adult and shouldn't be able to sign a contract?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yeah, fuck all that.

So your argument is an 18 year old isn't an adult and shouldn't be able to sign a contract?

18 is just an arbitrary value, if scientific data can show us that at 18, not all of the brain functions that effect decision making are formed, then maybe it should be changed.

I'm for using the best information available to make the determination, I just don't understand why you don't give a shit about it.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, relevant scientific research that seeks to determine when someone has finished developing components critical to good decision making is totally useless for this debate.

I can completely understand why you wouldn't give a shit about it.*

Although not useless, the evidence is hardly dispositive.

The age of 18 is a compromise based on a whole host of factors, one of them being brain development.

Think of the ramifications of increasing the age of responsibility though. When a child is a minor, the parents have both some control over and responsibility over the child. Parents of bad children would still be "stuck" with those children and children with bad parents would still be "stuck" with those parents.

IMO 18 is a great compromise.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

Studies of the prefrontal cortex. Here's an interview with somebody that released a study a few years ago.

frontline: inside the teenage brain: interviews: jay giedd, m.d. | PBS

its one study, its not scientific fact.

"its sorta unfair"

well life is sorta unfair. It would be nice if we could protect young adults forever but eventually you need to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

If 18 year olds can't plan for themselves, should their parents or school should pick their course of action after high school?

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

18 is just an arbitrary value, if scientific data can show us that at 18, not all of the brain functions that effect decision making are formed, then maybe it should be changed.

Like you say, every brain is different. Should we test to determine when each individual is "adult"? So some might be adult at 15 while others aren't until they're 22 or 23?

I'm for using the best information available to make the determination, I just don't understand why you don't give a shit about it.

I get frustrated when someone says "I'm looking for 0.5% benzoil peroxide and can't find it in stores" and someone replies back "The FDA sucks and should legalize all drugs!"

The thread started about recruiting in berkeley and now we're talking about brain development of 18 (17) year olds and if they should be allowed to sign contracts. Let's completely change societal norms because their brains aren't cooked yet.

So, would you support not allowing some things senior citizens to do? After some time their brains begin to deteriorate.....so there has to be a time when they're back to the brain of a pre-18 year old. Should there be some kind of testing to figure out when that happens so we can say "you're not an adult any more, no more voting for you."

[motivez]

Yeah, I don't think people beyond a certain age should be allowed to drive, for example. My grandmother is over 80 and is still driving around Dallas (Look out, Publius!).. it's a hazard for everyone on the road

As far as the Berkeley thing, if the college doesn't want to allow it, I think that's their right so long as they stop accepting federal money. A city I'm not so sure about, does that mean if something happened (ie: terrorist attack), the federal government wouldn't help?

If that's the case, there should probably be some sort of vote.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, I don't think people beyond a certain age should be allowed to drive, for example. My grandmother is over 80 and is still driving around Dallas (Look out, Publius!).. it's a hazard for everyone on the road

I'm not talking drive because they can cause physical harm with a car....how about vote? Can someone be told too to vote?

[kinggovernor]

back on topic

does anyone think it was right for the city to give a free parking spot to an organization protests out the recruiting station and obstructs federal business. I think not.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its one study, its not scientific fact.

"its sorta unfair"

well life is sorta unfair. It would be nice if we could protect young adults forever but eventually you need to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

If 18 year olds can't plan for themselves, should their parents or school should pick their course of action after high school?

It's not just one study but the direction that modern research is headed.

I'm not making excuses for kids, but in light of scientific findings is it really in an 18-year-old's best interests to allow them to enlist without some sort of waiting period? Is it in their interests to be pressured to sign? I mean, there's an obvious conflict of interest there for any military recruiter, and one that's built-in. They have no control over their quotas and you can't very well start recruiting middle-aged men.

These are all valid arguments that lend credibility to, if not to the actions of the City of Berkeley, at the very least the underlying motivations.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

back on topic

does anyone think it was right for the city to give a free parking spot to an organization protests out the recruiting station and obstructs federal business. I think not.

I don't see a problem as long as it wasn't physical obstruction.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

It's not just one study but the direction that modern research is headed.

its a theory, that's it. We can consider it when it is considered a fact.

I'm not making excuses for kids, but in light of scientific findings is it really in an 18-year-old's best interests to allow them to enlist without some sort of waiting period?

there is normally a time period between when you sign a contract and when you are actually in boot camp. You have to get medically screened, security clearance and normal paperwork. It is not as if you sign up and that day you are in boot camp.

But would it be in the best interest of 18-year-olds to have a waiting period on marriage, voting, buying a house, selecting a college, buying a car?

Is it in their interests to be pressured to sign?

deal with best is part of being an adult

I mean, there's an obvious conflict of interest there for any military recruiter, and one that's built-in.

what is the conflict of interest?

They have no control over their quotas and you can't very well start recruiting middle-aged men.

and?

These are all valid arguments that lend credibility to, if not to the actions of the City of Berkeley, at the very least the underlying motivations.

no they are not. Should they go after private colleges where 18 year olds attend with low graduation rates and high tuition costs?

The city of Berkley went after the Marine Corps through its "Peace and Justice Commission" because they have a problem with what the Marines do.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by bheld

I don't see a problem as long as it wasn't physical obstruction.

Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.

Wozniak said he was opposed to giving Code Pink a parking space because it favors free speech rights of one group over another.

"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."

Inside Bay Area - Berkeley gives Marines the boot

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its a theory, that's it. We can consider it when it is considered a fact.

there is normally a time period between when you sign a contract and when you are actually in boot camp. You have to get medically screened, security clearance and normal paperwork. It is not as if you sign up and that day you are in boot camp.

But would it be in the best interest of 18-year-olds to have a waiting period on marriage, voting, buying a house, selecting a college, buying a car?


deal with best is part of being an adult

what is the conflict of interest?

and?

no they are not. Should they go after private colleges where 18 year olds attend with low graduation rates and high tuition costs?

The city of Berkley went after the Marine Corps through its "Peace and Justice Commission" because they have a problem with what the Marines do.

You're in no position to debate the validity of any medical research. Your opinion is of little worth anyway, as it doesn't change the motivations of other people.

Time between signing up for enlistment and shipping out doesn't constitute a "waiting period" unless you can change your mind without repercussions. This is a conflict of interest because the recruiters can't afford to give kids a chance to change their minds, and they certainly wouldn't do it unless it was policy.

We can come up with all sorts of things that they should or shouldn't be able to do on a whim. All I know is that enlisting in the military is more permanent than any other situation you described.