Ping Dissident (Re: Emanc. Youth)

https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/548078.htm

This is why Epstein insists on no age limits in taking the test, so that youths under 12 can prove their competence in any given area if it exists. And I agree with Markaba's previous statement that there is no reason why, if the Epstein-Dumas Test of Adulthood or something very much like it is adopted, youths cannot achieve a partial emancipation covering certain areas where they were able to prove competence in, instead of treating the test as an all or nothing sort of deal, and then perhaps in six month increments, be able to re-take the portions of the test they previously didn't pass for the chance to achieve a full emancipation certificate, or at least a higher certification degree granting them more freedoms.

I was just rereading some Epstein today (dug up some of his "young people in action" highlights while talking with a young lad who has some sensible ideas about the world), and ran across a few examples of kids younger than 12 (presumably pre-pubescent) accomplishing some great stuff. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to grant kids rights where they've earned them, but I do maintain that it's a harder "sell" to the public. (I partly agree, but for reasons below, I think there are situations where partial granting of rights can put preteens into problematic and undesired conflict with their parents.)

[...] it also comes down to whether we accept that parents have a right to a type of ownership over their kids.

To some extent, I do accept this right to a type of ownership. It serves as a mechanism for the preservation of ideas, values, knowledge, and cultural practices that have been proven to be effective and useful in some way. Parents get the opportunity to pass on memes (real memes, not those silly internet ones ;-p) as well as genes to their offspring. This is, of course, a double-edged sword. One parent may teach their child to be accepting of diverse cultures and practices and to be a respectful steward of the environment, while another parent passes on racism, bigotry, and narrow superstitious beliefs (religion-related or otherwise). In any case, accumulated knowledge and practice certainly accounts for some measure of the stability and progress experienced in society. It also may actually account for diversity - if young children were more readily breaking from their parents' influence in some fashion, they'd be instead absorbing more of their values from an outside source, which would likely be the dominant culture. As an individual, I can retain my values for only about a human lifespan, and if I have no offspring, they vanish (unless I used some other form of meme transmission to pass them on). But by being able to pass on my values to my offspring, I can ensure that my values outlive me. And as a matter of equality, I can't deny the same right to other parents even if I don't agree with their values.

In fact I am quite sure that it is a major issue facing U.S. society today that those who are reproducing the most, and thus passing on their memes to offspring, are perpetuating cultural values (or lack of certain values) that affect various social problems (issues of education, poverty, gangs, drugs, etc.). And just because they break from their parents' direct influence doesn't mean they're in safer territory - the surrounding communities tend to propagate the same memes quite forcefully (low income parents of poor children may tell their children to stay in school and get good grades, but many of these kids end up in gangs, dropping out, etc. anyway)

So, it is clear that such children need some positive external influence to counteract the negative - and presumably from a young age - but how to do this? How are the children expected to, of their own accord, choose the values and influence of some other person over that of their parents'? I'm arguing against myself here a bit, yes. In this chicken-and-egg scenario, I'm going to suggest that we ought to focus on improving conditions for the chickens such that they don't lay any "bad eggs" (i.e. pass on negative values and influence to their offspring). Trying to do anything to the egg while the hen is sitting on it will just make a crabby hen, and if we kick her off, now all of a sudden it's our responsibility to raise that chick (who - the rest of society? taxpayer money?)

[...] we need to consider the possibility of our own biases overcoming our good judgment in situations where our children may truly need objectivity to make the best decision for themselves.

Which situations are those? Who decides which situations require objectivity? How do children learn to make good judgments, anyway? How does the child learn what is "best" for herself? If we deem parents unfit to teach their children to make good judgments, and if we deny parents the opportunity to impart their values which may influence judgement-making to their offspring, where are they learning those skills? It sounds like to ensure that children are truly free from bias while making decisions, we ought to have them taken away from parents and raised by the highly fictitious Impartial Panel of Objectivity. :-p

Remember, there are times when the best interests of the child actually conflict with the best interests of the parent(s), and this why an objective body of mediation must be there somewhere.

I'll concede this one, sort of. I think I agree, but can you share an example of this conflict of interest and how the child's autonomy alone would solve it? In every scenario that comes to mind for me, there is some other factor at play (usually money).

Experience and "biological maturity" can be relative, and this is why education from an early age is important, and why it's also important for children to be allowed to experiment within reasonable parameters, otherwise their ability to acquire invaluable experience will be retarded and stifled. There can be any number of ways a community in a sex positive society can develop ways for children who are curious to experiment in ways that are safe and productive for them.

One argument that is pretty relevant to all points here, that I made in my original post, is that at puberty, one can be sure that children have the maximum biological capacity for thinking and reasoning. But as you say, that capacity is meaningless if children haven't been given the opportunity to have experiences, experiment, and learn. And as you say, there are a number of ways for children to learn in a sex-positive society. Need their emancipation in regards to sex-related activities be prerequisite for these ways of learning to occur? I don't think so.

And just how valuable is knowledge from experience for preteens in this scenario? Is it worth coming into greatly distressing conflict with their parents in order to obtain? If 10yo Allie's right to mess around with Jorge is legally protected but her parents are angry about it but Allie still likes them otherwise and depends on them for lots of other physical and emotional needs, and can't (and sure doesn't want to) legally move out, how are they all supposed to resolve this? The correct resolution happens under either of these scenarios: either it's a sex-positive society and so the parents ARE okay with it, OR, Allie waits until next year, takes the test again to get full emancipation, and then makes her decision based on what she feels is best.

Me: One reason that the smarter, more reasonable antis are opposed to young people having freedom to date older people, btw, is that they fear biology will overwhelm their rational side, and they will get into a relationship that gets in the way of their long-term personal goals.
You: And a relationship with a peer can't conceivably cause the same problem?
In today's world, less likely, because the peer is not an independent figure with a job, income, and own residence. That's another rant, really, that's not related to the above topic - but I'd be happy to discuss it at a later point if desired.