Cut some of them a break; they’re too old to know better.
It’s always important to bear in mind that life expectancy numbers in the past were substantially affected by childhood mortality. The 18th Century was not the world of Logan’s Run: 35 almost undoubtedly was not considered to be elderly at that time, and if you made it to adulthood, you had reasonably good odds of living into what we, today, would consider to be old age.
I think that the average life expectancy of 35 is a valid point, because a great factor in calculating such a low number is the high infant mortality at the time. If someone made it to 21, they were likely to live into their 60s or 70s.
Would you say that folks who survived 9/11 had ‘practical experience’ wrt terrorism, and thus should be listened to wrt their opinions on what we should or shouldn’t do about it? Would you take then opinions into consideration, even if they weren’t something you thought was right, or would you still take their opinions into consideration? Would you take someone who survived a similar encounters opinion into consideration if they said they still thought we shouldn’t put any new restrictions on guns and, actually, we should make them more available to any and all?
Science–studied and reproducible facts concerning how stuff actually is–is against them, they are not worth listening to unless they present equally strong and credible evidence in support of their views.
Same goes for ‘rabid’ Trump supporters. DT is objectively unqualified for the POTS job, as are an astounding number of his cabinet picks. If someone has verifiable, untwisted evidence to the contrary I would very much like to see it.
And when religious fundamentalists live in accordance with the teachings of the most basic precepts of their religion, I would give them an ear as well. This is unlikely to happen in America, however.
Are you denying that in 1776 children were treated as adults much earlier in life? That someone in their early teens could be and often was expected to do an adults work?
I never said that folks would just keel over at 35 btw, so you are making some assumptions here that aren’t what I was getting at. Just saying.
Absolutely, is this a trick question? At the very least the 9/11 survivors are in a better position to say whether or not actual airplanes were involved–a position even I can’t take, having witnessed it only on TV and never having actually been to NYC. So yeah, if they have some ideas I’ll listen. I may not agree, but “Agree” is not the same as “listen and give reasonable consideration to”.
Who knows - that discussion might have happened if there was a lobby opposing increased airport security.
You might remember all those who said that it was too soon to discuss gun control after the shooting, and that it was somehow disrespectful of the victims to “politicize” it. Hard argument to make when the victims are speaking, so no wonder the opposition.
Now, who has the better right to speak on this issue - the kids who has seen his friends and teachers cut down, or the politician whose main interest is collecting the bucks and votes from the NRA? Maybe we should tell them to shut up instead.
You said that 21 was middle age back then. It wasn’t. There are plenty of 21 year-olds in critical military jobs today, and plenty gainfully employed.
I really wonder how this thread would have gone if instead of this group of high school speaking out as they have, 1,000 high school shooters with NRA hats had marched advocating for guns rights. I think we’d be having a much different discussion.
(For the record, I’m for banning assault rifles and bump stocks and I’m not a fan of the NRA.)
Another recent joiner, too.
No, I’m not. I’m just saying that you seemed to be implying (by calling 21 “middle age”) that lifespans were completely compressed, front to back, back then.
And, by “treated as adults much earlier,” it probably depends on what measure.
-
Old enough to go to college? Thomas Jefferson went to William & Mary at age 16, and John Adams entered Harvard at the same age.
-
Old enough to serve in the military? The Royal Navy routinely had boys serving (Washington’s family apparently tried to get him an appointment at age 15).
-
Old enough to work? Lots and lots of stories of young people working as apprentices as teenagers (or even younger); Franklin started working for his father when he left school at age 10, and he founded a newspaper at age 15.
-
Old enough to vote? Voting rights in the U.S. weren’t based on age originally, but on being a white, male property owner (which very likely excluded nearly all teenagers). It wasn’t until 1971 that the 26th Amendment gave 18 year olds the vote (prior to that, it was on a state-by-state basis, and it was 21 in many states).
-
Old enough to marry? It looks like laws for “age of consent” in that era were set at age 12 or so, though they were apparently routinely ignored (and I suspect that this was particularly true of young girls being married to adult men).
Too late to edit my earlier reply to this:
Your two sentences above describe two different concepts:
- Children working / serving in the military / marrying
- Children being “treated as adults” legally
A little digging on Google doesn’t help me turn up any solid info on what the “age of majority” (i.e., legal adulthood, which is now 18 in most, if not all, of the US) was in that time. Even if kids were working, serving in the military, etc. at age 10, 12, 14, etc., it looks like they may well not have had full rights as adults.
For example, Benjamin Franklin was apprenticed to his brother at age 12. He left that apprenticeship (and fled Boston for Philadelphia) without his brother’s permission at around age 17, and was considered to be a fugitive, which suggests that he was legally not yet emancipated (though I don’t know if that was solely a function of age, or the terms of his apprenticeship).
I don’t think there’s much doubt that most of those extolling the virtues of youth involvement and opinions would be a good bit more down on the wisdom of the youth, and most of those that today don’t find their opinion terribly valuable would get busy extolling the virtues of youth involvement and opinions.
I don’t think the average life expectancy of 35 is a valid point.
You are projecting. I never said we should tell them to shut up or that they shouldn’t speak…in fact I specifically said that this was horseshit. But the OP also said ‘too young to know what they are talking about’ and, yeah…I think they are too young to really know what they are talking about outside of their narrow experience with the school shooting. I think that the 9/11 victims didn’t know much about international terrorism either, so weren’t really good sources on that subject despite living through 9/11. What I think is that these kids are saying things that many on this board want to hear, so that makes them worthy of ‘respect’…but if they weren’t saying things people on this board wanted to hear I have my doubts they would be getting the same ‘respect’.
Full disclosure…contrary to what a bunch of you obviously have as a preconception, I am excited to see how this plays out and hoping for something like an Arab Spring moment where these young people are able to connect with a wider shift in attitude that I think is happening. It doesn’t seem like that is happening back in the business as usual DC political environment, but I hope this has legs and am fascinated to see where it goes. But I also don’t think that young people of this age in this time and in this country generally are great fonts of wisdom or insight. Granted, I don’t have any kids this age anymore…mine have all grown up…but I had 4 and I know the sorts of insights they have on things. Hell, I don’t even trust their wisdom and insight into games or entertainment, generally. 
I don’t know if they did or didn’t have the full rights as adults, but they were treated more like adults earlier in life and expected to do more than we do of our kids today. This was a bad thing, btw…kids today have access to much more knowledge and data, but the other side of that coin is that we coddle them and allow them to be kids much later in life, without having to take on the responsibilities and burdens of being an adult so early. And, of course, there are exceptional kids today as they were in that cherry picked list I was responding too. But the majority of US teens are just kids without much insight or even understanding of deeper issues (hell, I’d say most US adults don’t have that either…which is why I don’t automatically give them ‘respect’ and attention either, in general).
Fine. It’s not what I meant, but ok…I was wrong. It wasn’t ‘middle aged’ back then, for those lucky enough not to die young from the variety of things that could or would kill you, or to be burned out young from the harsh menial labor, disease, war or whatever else. Can we get past that part now?
As for ‘21 year-olds in critical military jobs today’, what did you have in mind? There aren’t 21 year old generals today…or even 31 year old generals. For the most part there aren’t even 21 year old full officers today. Those exceptional people on that cherry picked list do have counterpoints in today’s society…there certainly are exceptional young people in our country (and in France too :p). But that list was of very exceptional people who lived in a time when people grew up faster, and were giving adult responsibilities and burdens younger…and they were the exceptional people, not just some random teens from a random school who went through a random if horrific event. They are worthy of listening too because they earned it, not because or despite of being young.
So, two points.
-
I really do dislike the reflexive treatment of these kids as ‘too immature’ or ’ too close’ to the situation to have an informed opinion. It suggests that somehow the opposition is reasonable, rational, and correct. It defaults the middle/upper class, white, conservative viewpoint as somehow less based on emotion, and it’s something I’ve come to resent quite a bit. Just as in discussions decrying ‘identity’ politics- there is nothing sacred about economics that makes it a ‘real issue,’ other than ‘identity politics’ is a catch-all way of describing issues that impact minority groups.
Now, these kids are impassioned. And if they shout things that are anti-factual or anti-discussion, you do that. But the starting point of ‘well, they are emotional, so disregard’ is designed to stifle protest. -
Someone brought up 9/11 earlier. As a native New Yorker, if we had listened to the actual victims, we would not have invaded Iraq. And it wasn’t new Yorkers calling for Rudy Giuliani to be mayor for life. So, while I don’t think a legal system where response is solely dictated by the victim’s feelings of what’s fair is appropriate, there’s also no rule that says that trauma survivors make inherently worse decisions than anyone else.
He can read?
Oh, not true! If Don the Con were there at Marjory Stoneman Douglas he said ”…I think I’d really run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon…”. And this is a guy with five deferrments to the draft, so he really knows what he’s talking about. I mean, the bone spurs would probably have prevented him from running very fast, and if the attacker was an eagle then all bets are off, but man, if there is one thing Trump knows about it is talking like a brave guy from a great distance to danger.
I wonder how this thread would go if Freddy The Invisible Pink Unicorn farted magic pixie dust all over the Lincoln Monument and casued a granite statue to suddenly come to life and start singing Pharrel Williams’ “Happy” while dancing around the Reflecting Pool? We’ll never know because that shit didn’t happen, and neither did the the hypothetical scenario above.
It is noteworthy that the only people denying that the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas (and high school students energized by this topic in general) are people who disagree with their position, which is pretty much exactly in contradiction to the entire principle of freedom of speech and the respect for differing views in a free and open democracy, which tells you everything you need to know about these supposed ‘freedom-loving’ Second Amendment advocates actually feel about the principles of the United States.
These ‘children’, most of them on the cusp of adulthood, have spoken more elequently, with greater reserve and maturity, and with more pertinent experience than pretty much any one else on any side of the firearms debate. It may be that many do not agree with them but they very clearly have an informed position and deserve to be heard in the national debate over an issue that has deeply affected their lives in a very direct and personal way. If they are “too young” in any way, it is that they have not yet accepted the bullshit strictures that allow powerful lobbying organizations to dictate to elected representatives how they vote and spend public funds regardless of whether it benefits their constituants or American society as a whole. They’re too young to be hoodwinked by the notion that corporations and think-tanks are people, too, and that the only thing that matters in life is the “winning” by forcing everyone else to lose.
Let them speak. They have more to say, and more reason to say it, than virtually any politician or NRA mouthpiece.
Stranger