Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) I disagree. That tat could well change the kid's employment prospects for a start. The kneejerk libertarian reaction against laws such as this isn't always correct. In most cases, these laws are reactive, not proactive. They are a consequence of someone doing something really stupid. But that's the thing - you can't write laws every time someone does something stupid and try to protect people from their own stupidity. There are 8 billion people on the planet and there's bound to be all kinds of stupid decisions and actions. Survival of the fittest - in the long run, stupid people will die off. The role of government should not be to save ourselves from ourselves. Afterall, government is controlled by those same humans - it's not like goverment is run by some super God-like computer that has no flaws and knows what's best for everyone Edited January 20, 2012 by Brentastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 QUOTE (Santa booing dude @ 1/20/12 10:45am) * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The role of government should not be to save ourselves from ourselves. I get that and I tend to agree as a (very) general rule..........though I do appreciate the government mandating that we all drive on the same side of the road, for example. In this case, the law is not trying to save us from ourselves, it is trying to save kids from idiot parents. How many tats is OK, BTW? One? Three? Twenty-six? What if it had been put on his head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 In this case, the law is not trying to save us from ourselves, it is trying to save kids from idiot parents. Ding ding ding ding ding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I get that and I tend to agree as a (very) general rule..........though I do appreciate the government mandating that we all drive on the same side of the road, for example. In this case, the law is not trying to save us from ourselves, it is trying to save kids from idiot parents. How many tats is OK, BTW? One? Three? Twenty-six? What if it had been put on his head? There is no answer to that. In this case the child and mother both made a decision that harms nobody else. If it was a bad decision, only they will pay the consequences. Again, you can't prevent the whole world from making bad decisions. It may prove to be a tough lesson but I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I disagree. That tat could well change the kid's employment prospects for a start. The kneejerk libertarian reaction against laws such as this isn't always correct. In most cases, these laws are reactive, not proactive. They are a consequence of someone doing something really stupid. and reactive laws are almost always really stupid, as I believe you yourself have often stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I get that and I tend to agree as a (very) general rule..........though I do appreciate the government mandating that we all drive on the same side of the road, for example. In this case, the law is not trying to save us from ourselves, it is trying to save kids from idiot parents. How many tats is OK, BTW? One? Three? Twenty-six? What if it had been put on his head? Exactly, it does not stand in contrast to libertarianism in the least to protect children, the one group that is unable to protect themselves or make rational decisions on their behalf. While age-restrictions are somewhat arbitrary, they are designed to protect the liberties of everyone involved, by not letting a 12-year-old drive old drive down the street and maybe kill someone, and in these cases, to recognize that these are children who are clearly not capable of making adult-type permanent decisions for themselves... So yes, it's protecting them from dumb parents who might let them make clearly adult decisions like this. Irresponsibility for your children is not a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But that's the thing - you can't write laws every time someone does something stupid and try to protect people from their own stupidity. There are 8 billion people on the planet and there's bound to be all kinds of stupid decisions and actions. Survival of the fittest - in the long run, stupid people will die off. The role of government should not be to save ourselves from ourselves. Afterall, government is controlled by those same humans - it's not like goverment is run by some super God-like computer that has no flaws and knows what's best for everyone furthermore, when the government tries to insulate and protect people from stupidity, really all it ends up doing is positively incentivizing stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 There is no answer to that. In this case the child and mother both made a decision that harms nobody else. If it was a bad decision, only they will pay the consequences. Again, you can't prevent the whole world from making bad decisions. It may prove to be a tough lesson but I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do. Mother and child have NOT made a decision because the child has no legal right to make such a decision. The mother has made a decision to break the law (and ignorance of the law is no excuse, as has been pointed out already). You say: "I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do." You should have said: "I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do to somebody else" if you wanted to be accurate in this case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 And here is the crux of the issue. There is no law, nor should there be, that says any individual should or must "serve" society. The laws are such that no individual will encroach on another person's rights. This is not a small distinction - it's a mammoth one. This tattoo is not something that will harm the child, unless you want to cook up something about some perceived emotional abuse. And if you want to go there then know there's not a human alive who hasn't met that definition at one time or another, and the only way to stop it completely is to watch everything everyone says to everyone else in life. So if it does no harm to the child, why can't the mother have this say so? It harms no one. Bingo...I agree with you 100%. However, in our country, children are not afforded the same rights as adults....as evidenced by the many laws that state kids can't do certain things that adults can...some are in place so they can't harm themselves or others (driving a vehicle, for example), and others due to their lack of maturity. For example, kids can't vote. It's a law that is in place because most children do not have the maturity to make an informed decision. No one would get "hurt" if they did....but its a law nonetheless, due to the understood fact that kids don't yet have the maturity and experiences to make 100% informed decisions. The basis for the tattoo law is likely the same...kids don't have a full understanding (especially at 10 years old) of the social and emotional ramifications of getting a tattoo. This kid in question wanted to pay homage to his lost brother...very sweet....is it something he'd want when he's an adult? Who knows? I think he should be afforded the opportunity to decide, versus having his mother essentially make the decision for him. And don't tell me it was his decision...at 10-years-old, it wasn't his decision to make. These types of laws/restictions are in place for a reason, and are not at the discretion of a parent who feels their kid is old enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 There is no answer to that. In this case the child and mother both made a decision that harms nobody else. If it was a bad decision, only they will pay the consequences. Again, you can't prevent the whole world from making bad decisions. It may prove to be a tough lesson but I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do. Obviously, he's going to be on welfare for his entire life because he's unemployable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) These types of laws/restictions are in place for a reason, and are not at the discretion of a parent who feels their kid is old enough. What reason is that? Because an over-reaching legislative body that feels the need to regulate "decency" says so? Edited January 20, 2012 by godtomsatan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 And don't tell me it was his decision...at 10-years-old, it wasn't his decision to make. agreed. depending on your perspective, the final say belongs either with his parents, or with politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Mother and child have NOT made a decision because the child has no legal right to make such a decision. The mother has made a decision to break the law (and ignorance of the law is no excuse, as has been pointed out already). You say: "I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do." You should have said: "I'd certainly take the consequences of those actions over somebody else telling me what I can and cannot do to somebody else" if you wanted to be accurate in this case So you (and presumably government) are able to absolutely peg age X as when a person is able to make a sound decision? A children who are 17 years and 11 months old are uniformly less capable of thinking for themselves than an 18 year old? There's something to be said of learning from your own mistakes and dealing with consequences. It's easier for a child to smoke cigarettes/drugs, drink booze, kill someone (among other bad decisions) than it is to get a tattoo (which required parental consent AND a tattoo artist willing to do it). All of those bad decisions I just outlined can be done by the child on their own without the consent, approval or knowledge of anyone else. And all of those bad decisions result in FAR WORSE consequences than getting a tattoo. In these cases, the child must learn from his mistakes and deal with the consequences. My point is that life is a journey of decisions and consequences and the less government interferes in that journey, the better off we all will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What reason is that? Because an over-reaching legislative body that feels the need to regulate "decency" says so? That's an entirely different discussion all-together, and one I am very much on the other side of, but if you look at the history of the juvenile legal system, it's even more of a mess than the adult system, because they simply don't know how to deal with the rights and interests of these "not-quite-adults". They necessarily have to be looked at differently, but when you lean in the direction of deterrence, or treatment/rehabilitation/humanitarian, or due process rights, it only stands in contrast to one of those other philosophies. Point being, it's even more complicated when looking at the best interests of children, and not so simple as just "right to be free".... The right to be free was what led to the exploitation of child labor in the first place, so some steps need to be taken to protect the rights of children that don't have the power or rational capability to decide for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Obviously, he's going to be on welfare for his entire life because he's unemployable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) That's an entirely different discussion all-together, and one I am very much on the other side of, but if you look at the history of the juvenile legal system, it's even more of a mess than the adult system, because they simply don't know how to deal with the rights and interests of these "not-quite-adults". They necessarily have to be looked at differently, but when you lean in the direction of deterrence, or treatment/rehabilitation/humanitarian, or due process rights, it only stands in contrast to one of those other philosophies. Point being, it's even more complicated when looking at the best interests of children, and not so simple as just "right to be free".... The right to be free was what led to the exploitation of child labor in the first place, so some steps need to be taken to protect the rights of children that don't have the power or rational capability to decide for themselves. It's a f'ing tattoo memorializing his dead brother. He's not in the juvenile legal system, and he's not being forced to work, or even at all, to the best of my understanding, had his rights violated in any way. Edited January 20, 2012 by godtomsatan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So you (and presumably government) are able to absolutely peg age X as when a person is able to make a sound decision? A children who are 17 years and 11 months old are uniformly less capable of thinking for themselves than an 18 year old? There's something to be said of learning from your own mistakes and dealing with consequences. It's easier for a child to smoke cigarettes/drugs, drink booze, kill someone (among other bad decisions) than it is to get a tattoo (which required parental consent AND a tattoo artist willing to do it). All of those bad decisions I just outlined can be done by the child on their own without the consent, approval or knowledge of anyone else. And all of those bad decisions result in FAR WORSE consequences than getting a tattoo. In these cases, the child must learn from his mistakes and deal with the consequences. My point is that life is a journey of decisions and consequences and the less government interferes in that journey, the better off we all will be. We could frame laws that say something along the lines of "No person shall vote in a general election until they feel they are old enough" or "No person shall purchase or otherwise obtain alcohol until they are 21 (or, if they're really mature and a generally good kid, 19 or 20 or thereabouts)" but I doubt they'd be real workable. Obviously some line has to be drawn even though maturity levels vary greatly. All the things you mentioned are illegal. The tattoo thing is also. The reason? See Swammi's posts - he has eruditely explained why more than once already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) So you (and presumably government) are able to absolutely peg age X as when a person is able to make a sound decision? A children who are 17 years and 11 months old are uniformly less capable of thinking for themselves than an 18 year old? There's something to be said of learning from your own mistakes and dealing with consequences. It's easier for a child to smoke cigarettes/drugs, drink booze, kill someone (among other bad decisions) than it is to get a tattoo (which required parental consent AND a tattoo artist willing to do it). All of those bad decisions I just outlined can be done by the child on their own without the consent, approval or knowledge of anyone else. And all of those bad decisions result in FAR WORSE consequences than getting a tattoo. In these cases, the child must learn from his mistakes and deal with the consequences. My point is that life is a journey of decisions and consequences and the less government interferes in that journey, the better off we all will be. If I run and get 9 1/2 yards, isn't that close enough to be a first down? Yes the age limits are arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere. And jsut because a juvenile getting a a tattoo is currently more difficult than getting someone to buy you a pack of smokes or a beer, does not make it any more right for the parent to be negligent in allowing their kid to take part in any of those dangerous activities, that they're clearly incapable of determining the danger, negative effects or permanence of themselves. And as Furd linked to earlier, getting a a tattoo is not harmless, and certainly not when compared to the need to allow them for minors... The pain, disease risks and permanence are all very good reasons to protect them from irresponsible parents to allow them to make this uninformed decision, that also is forbidden by basic contract laws (that were designed to keep people from exploiting minors rights). Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) It's a f'ing tattoo memorializing his dead brother. He's not in the juvenile legal system, and he's not being forced to work, or even at all, to the best of my understanding, had his rights violated in any way. My point there is that it's foolish to pretend that a juvenile should have the same rights as an adult. All that allows for is adults to infringe on their "right" to be a kid and not be subjected to clearly adult decisions for themselves. Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 My point there is that it's foolish to pretend that a juvenile should have the same rights as an adult. All that allows for is adults to infringe on their right to be a kid and not be subjected to clearly adult decisions. Again, it's a f'ing tattoo memorializing his dead brother. Quit making this out to be any more than what it actually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The idea that anyone would be opposed to a ban on 10 year olds being allowed to get tatoos is so absurd I now welcome the annihilation promised by the Mayans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) The idea that anyone would be opposed to a ban on 10 year olds being allowed to get tatoos is so absurd I now welcome the annihilation promised by the Mayans. I'm not in favor of a 10 yr old getting a tattoo, or really of anyone getting a tattoo, but it isn't necessary to criminalize it. There more pressing things legislative moralists can deal with, for instance, an education system that produces less adults who do things like allow tattoos for their 10 yr old children. Edited January 20, 2012 by godtomsatan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huzz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But his brother loved to eat so it needed to be remembered in ink....... Eater pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Tatooing 10 year olds is either legal or not. I vote not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.