Re: (Re: Emanc. Youth) [format corrected]

"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.

Yes, it would be a harder "sell." And yes, pre-pubescents generally need more guidance. This is why we must proceed in steps. Kids under the age of 12 obviously have potential that is largely untapped in today's system, but was more evident in previous eras; it's unlikely that Leonard De Vinci would have achieved in today's world at such an early age what he did at age 7 in his own era, for example. "

Yes. But if the maturity test is hard enough, few preteens will pass.

"(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.)"

The same applies to teens, and tweens (remember Concerning Hobbits).

"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.

But sharing someone's DNA does not count as a biological stamp of ownership."

That much is true - children share parents´ DNA just as much as parents share children´s.

But the parental investment in producing and raising the children does count as a stamp of ownership.

"Parents need to think of themselves as caregivers, not owners, and there is a huge difference between the two despite the apparent overlap of methodology at times."

But do not forget that they are investors. And that is a mark of ownership.

"People shouldn't have offspring for the intended purpose of insuring that their ideas and values get carried on, and expect their kids--who are autonomous individuals--to harbor an obligation to adopt them and carry them on. This can only be done by choice; kids aren't brought into this world for the benefit of their parents."

Children ARE brought into the world for the benefit of parents. Parents have certain goals in deciding to produce children, and in deciding to care for the children rather than neglecting or outright abandoning them.

"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.

Here you are confusing a right for an expectation, and that is a form of power, not a right. Do I have some sort of right to expect any offspring I might have to adopt and carry on my values as a Wiccan? "

The question is - right against the children themselves, or right against all adults other than the children?

"Parents alone should not be allowed to be the only ones involved in the decision-making process because they are only two people, and their values may be based on things such as racism, sexism, and a strong moralism-based opposition to their kids making certain decisions irregardless of whether or not it would be the best one for the child in question. "

There is absolutely no reason why any third party presuming to interfere with the parents may not have values based on the things above.

"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

Such a community panel is highly fictitious only until we create it.

Btw, what is the difference between something that is "highly fictitious" and just plain old ordinary "fictitious?" Something is either fictitious or it isn't. "

When you create it, it is still completely fictious - the fiction will be not its existence but its impartiality and objectivity.

"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.

I fully disagree. You cannot fully learn anything unless you experience it firsthand, as opposed to simply reading or hearing about it. "

Cannot learn fully but can learn partially.
Besides, does "participation" require "emancipation"?

"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?

Should it be the "right" of the parents to hold something over their kids like that? "

That is the exact position where lots of 18 year olds are now.