|
Top-level
But basically, it's very much not evidence based to look at under-25s and say 'Your brain isn't fully developed', when they're brains are working exactly as nature intended, in so many ways. And they're absolutely capable of thinking things through, making decisions etc. /13 14 comments
We make teenaged school students choose GCSEs and A-Levels that will likely DETERMINE THE COURSE OF THEIR ENTIRE LIFE. If their brains are underdeveloped, how is this allowed? They need at least another decade before they can be allowed to make these decisions. /15 If under-25s are too neurologically underdeveloped to make decisions that affect their body and wellbeing, then that rules out all career athletes under that age. You can't possibly let a 18 year old take up a sport that comes with significant concussion risk, surely? /16 Also, let's follow the logic to its conclusion If having a brain functioning at its peak is a requirement of making important decisions, then it's probably more important to have a *maximum* age limit than a minimum. Because the older you are, the more your brain wears out /17 Thanks to basic entropy, if you're at retirement age, your brain will likely be losing fluid intelligence, the ability to reason, solve problems etc. Can you trust such people to make important decisions? If you insist and a peak-performance brain, then technically no /18 That's not my stance, in the slightest. But if you're going to make rigid rules that insist on individual's brains having the capability of a 'fully developed' one, then you can't ignore the fact that this development can be 'reversed' due to the consequences of age. /19 In any case, if we're going to insist on adulthood being determined by this sort of biological absolutism, then in the biological sense, an 'adult' organism is one that is capable of reproducing. So, humans are adults as soon as puberty its. I.e. 11-12 years old. /20 No, I don't think any rational person in modern society would consider an 11yo an adult. There are countless other factors to consider But that's tacit acknowledgement of the fact that hard biological boundaries as a decider of human development are a bad idea [Hint hint] /21 Point is, it honestly doesn't matter what issue it's being applied to, the whole 'Those under 25 have underdeveloped brains' argument doesn't hold up any way you slice it. It's often just an easy way of dismissing the valid perspective of younger people. Which isn't good. /end  @Garwboy I've come to believe that whenever someone is putting forth an argument that kids are physically incapable of handling something, it's definitely nonsense. I've only ever seen this from people interested in keeping kids powerless and unheard.  @justafrog @Garwboy Which is most people, in my experience. If I had basic human rights when I was a kid, I could have saved myself a lot of unnecessary suffering. @enoch_exe_inc @Garwboy Wish you were wrong. So many people thought it was quite normal to skip past the consent step with me, and certainly didn't consult me before deciding about me. Only when I could legally sue their asses did they suddenly discover respect for personal autonomy. That was a very interesting change. So they know about the concept, just can't be assed to apply it to people who can't fight back? Fucking creeps.  @justafrog @enoch_exe_inc @Garwboy I just saw the best thing ever: > Never trust someone who won't apologize to a child. And that's my new litmus test for "is this human being someone I can trust as far as I can throw them?" |
Gregory's Server
But even so, let's say it *were* true that under-25s have 'underdeveloped' brains, and thus can't be trusted to make decisions or hold views on important things.
This calls into doubt a huge number of things that are normal in our society
/14