Newt Gingrich and adolescence

[Laissez-Faire]

Is Newt Gingrich a fucking moron?

Answer: Yes. Only a madman would suggest something like this. Adolescents would just go and be teenagers in adulthood, resulting in pain for them and pain to the economy.

Yes, because immaturity is innately a concept of age. It shows no or little bearing into adulthood for those who developed "naturally".

[Augustus Este]

For once I'd like to see the same passion in bashing Obama and Democrats.

Have you by chance heard of the US house of representatives?


They do just that. A lot.

[Southern Babylonia]

To "end" adolescence just doesn't make sense. Gingrich seems to live in the illusion that he can manipulate our minds (by us, I mean teens) into thinking there's no difference between us and someone at the age of 25. Unfortunately there is. However, I know the other side of this debate too well, the side where they call us "innocent little children." Do you really have to jump to extremes??? We're teens, pure and simple. If you have a problem with that, sucks for you. I admit we may not be ready to move out or get a job, but we ARE ready to not be "sheltered" anymore. My mother explained rape to me when I was like six, and I understood it was a serious thing (not that that stop me from joking bout it casually with other guys). Thusly, I believe that if I could understand it at 6, people can understand it at 12 or 13. I personally am 14, and I know about basically every sexual thingy in the universe. Has it made my skin turn neon pink? Not as far as I know.

Also, fun fact Gingrich: My voice has been changing since I was 8, and I sexually started puberty at the age of 9 (heck, maybe I was still 8!). I wasn't exactly ready to become a man then.

[Laissez-Faire]

To "end" adolescence just doesn't make sense. Gingrich seems to live in the illusion that he can manipulate our minds (by us, I mean teens) into thinking there's no difference between us and someone at the age of 25. Unfortunately there is. However, I know the other side of this debate too well, the side where they call us "innocent little children." Do you really have to jump to extremes??? We're teens, pure and simple. If you have a problem with that, sucks for you. I admit we may not be ready to move out or get a job, but we ARE ready to not be "sheltered" anymore. My mother explained rape to me when I was like six, and I understood it was a serious thing (not that that stop me from joking bout it casually with other guys). Thusly, I believe that if I could understand it at 6, people can understand it at 12 or 13. I personally am 14, and I know about basically every sexual thingy in the universe. Has it made my skin turn neon pink? Not as far as I know.

Also, fun fact Gingrich: My voice has been changing since I was 8, and I sexually started puberty at the age of 9 (heck, maybe I was still 8!). I wasn't exactly ready to become a man then.

There simply can't be a justifiable "mix" between the two. It's either full responsibility and respect, or it's none- otherwise it is the same moral hazard-like social scenario, and the same ultimate social construct.

[Wisconsin7]

To "end" adolescence just doesn't make sense. Gingrich seems to live in the illusion that he can manipulate our minds (by us, I mean teens) into thinking there's no difference between us and someone at the age of 25. Unfortunately there is. However, I know the other side of this debate too well, the side where they call us "innocent little children." Do you really have to jump to extremes??? We're teens, pure and simple. If you have a problem with that, sucks for you. I admit we may not be ready to move out or get a job, but we ARE ready to not be "sheltered" anymore. My mother explained rape to me when I was like six, and I understood it was a serious thing (not that that stop me from joking bout it casually with other guys). Thusly, I believe that if I could understand it at 6, people can understand it at 12 or 13. I personally am 14, and I know about basically every sexual thingy in the universe. Has it made my skin turn neon pink? Not as far as I know.

Also, fun fact Gingrich: My voice has been changing since I was 8, and I sexually started puberty at the age of 9 (heck, maybe I was still 8!). I wasn't exactly ready to become a man then.

There simply can't be a justifiable "mix" between the two. It's either full responsibility and respect, or it's none- otherwise it is the same moral hazard-like social scenario, and the same ultimate social construct.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Oh, and also, I think you're just as full of shit as Gingrich is. Maybe I'm just a bit behind, but what's this moral hazard excuse?

[Quelesh]

How about allowing them to assume responsibilities (and the rights that come with them) if they choose to? Let people decide for themselves how quickly they want to "grow up."

Because the only ones that can actually cope with it will be the ones that don't choose it. Those that choose it will be those that don't think about the responsibilities, expecting to get out of them, and just want the rights, whilst those that could actually cope with it will see the responsibilities and just wont go for it.

That seems circular, and actually backwards, to me, to say that only the people who reject rights would deserve those rights and those who would claim them do not deserve them. In my opinion that's as absurd as saying that if one claims to be immature, that's a sign of maturity.

1.It's legal to discriminate according to the age.

It shouldn't be, or at least it shouldn't be for the government to do so in its statutes.

2.It's not stupid - it's easier to draw a line with an age limit instead than with an exam. I would support exams, for one, but I recognize they would be a damn mess. If a 12-year-old can pass the high-school final exams, I agree he should be considered an adult. Hence the parents can kick him out of house for good. Time to get working, you slackers! Or you can join the Army.

It may be messy, but life is messy. Regarding the high school final exams, I think that anyone of any age who can demonstrate the appropriate knowledge should be able to get an equivalency degree.

3.It's unfair to discriminate someone on the basis of a characteristic beyond their control? No, it's fair. You don't control your height; professional basketball teams discriminate according to the applicant's height. You don't control your intelligence: some employers discriminate applicants according to their intelligence.

Whether you can play for the NBA is determined by talent, not height. (See Muggsy Bogues.) NBA players (and people who want to become NBA players) are judged on their merits and their actual abilities and competence, which is exactly what I think should be done with young people.

I think we need to stop seeing teenagers as criminals, for once.

I'm a teenager and every damn time I go into a grocery store alone the adults at the counters have to give me a very suspicious look and whenever I go to checkout I'm either asked "where's your mommy?" or "are you hiding something in your jacket?" or something along those lines. It pisses me off, I'm not a criminal and I don't plan on it. I'm not 5.

The "young thug" or "juvenile delinquent" is just as much of an unwarranted stereotype as the "black gangster." Speaking of thinking that teenagers are criminals, here's a handy graph:

Many jurisdictions have laws that actually do make criminals out of people because of their age (curfew laws, etc.)

Newt Gingrich is sometimes described as a "thinker,"

Let me go ahead and stop you right there.

Take a moment to review who these people are, who describe him as a "thinker." Are any of them people you really want to emulate?

Exactly.

The main one who describes Gingrich that way is ... Gingrich. He's also the Man Who Stands Between You And Auschwitz. He's also just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Reagan, Wilson and FDR, Thomas Edison, the Duke of Wellington, Henry Clay, Churchill and Thatcher, De Gaulle, William Wallace, Pericles and Vince Lombardi. Ask him, he'll tell you. Linky

I have to admit, you have a point. I disagree with a lot of things that Gingrich says, and his fundamental view on morality (well, his view on what's moral for other people) is not one that I share.

Is Newt Gingrich a fucking moron?

Answer: Yes. Only a madman would suggest something like this. Adolescents would just go and be teenagers in adulthood, resulting in pain for them and pain to the economy.

On the contrary, they would learn how to be adults. The reason they "act like teenagers" is because they're prevented from being adults. They're strongly encouraged by our society to be essentially big children, and strongly discouraged from being grown-up.

Gingrich seems to live in the illusion that he can manipulate our minds (by us, I mean teens) into thinking there's no difference between us and someone at the age of 25.

There is a difference, on average, between 14-year-olds and 25-year-olds, but, as with race and sex, differences within groups are greater than differences between groups. These differences between groups are, to a large extent (but not entirely), created by the social construct of adolescence.

[NERVUN]

There simply can't be a justifiable "mix" between the two. It's either full responsibility and respect, or it's none- otherwise it is the same moral hazard-like social scenario, and the same ultimate social construct.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Oh, and also, I think you're just as full of shit as Gingrich is. Maybe I'm just a bit behind, but what's this moral hazard excuse?

Let's cool those jets before you start a fire, m'k?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Throwing full responsibilities at teens suddenly will not work. You need to ease them in.

[Wikkiwallana]

It may or may not be a bad thing in practice, but it's an awful thing to hold as an ideal for people as a whole to live up to.

Why? It's the middle class that boosted the American economy to its number one position after WWII, and it's the middle class that is going to boost us out of it. Encouraging to people to settle down and consume is a good thing in the long run, no matter how ''boring'' it might seem.

There is no "us" in this context, for fucks sake! Stop acting like you live here!

[Wikkiwallana]

A Washington Insider.

What does this ^
have to do with this? v

I hate Newt Gingrich. The worst candidate ever.

[Pendragonia]

Children need a period of gradual adjustment to responsibilities. If we throw them to the dogs at some arbitrary age, how are we helping them?

We already do that, by saying that at 18 you are a legal adult (but while you may now vote and inhale carinogens, you are forbidden in most states to drink alcohol).

For the most part, people start to develop the independence of their mind during adolescence. There was a whole NatGeo article about this a few months back.

[Salandriagado]

Because the only ones that can actually cope with it will be the ones that don't choose it. Those that choose it will be those that don't think about the responsibilities, expecting to get out of them, and just want the rights, whilst those that could actually cope with it will see the responsibilities and just wont go for it.

That seems circular, and actually backwards, to me, to say that only the people who reject rights would deserve those rights and those who would claim them do not deserve them. In my opinion that's as absurd as saying that if one claims to be immature, that's a sign of maturity.

It's true, though. Whenever I ask someone (scout leader) to go and do something, the volunteers are always the idiots who will just go and piss about. Hence why I always send the quiet ones hanging around the back that will actually do it properly.

[Geilinor]

If children are assuming responsibilities too late, it's the fault of the parents for not teaching them what responsibility is.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Children need a period of gradual adjustment to responsibilities. If we throw them to the dogs at some arbitrary age, how are we helping them?

We already do that, by saying that at 18 you are a legal adult (but while you may now vote and inhale carinogens, you are forbidden in most states to drink alcohol).

For the most part, people start to develop the independence of their mind during adolescence. There was a whole NatGeo article about this a few months back.

Newt Gingrich isn't just saying the law needs to treat children as adults, he is saying everybody does. He's an idiot, plain and simple.

[Quelesh]

Children need a period of gradual adjustment to responsibilities. If we throw them to the dogs at some arbitrary age, how are we helping them?

We already do that, by saying that at 18 you are a legal adult (but while you may now vote and inhale carinogens, you are forbidden in most states to drink alcohol).

For the most part, people start to develop the independence of their mind during adolescence. There was a whole NatGeo article about this a few months back.

This is a good point. Seventeen-year-olds are treated like five-year-olds in many areas of law. They can't vote, they can't sign legally-binding contracts, they can't join the military (at least without parental consent, and even then they can't go into combat), they can't own real estate, in some states (but not most) they can't consent to have sex, and they can't go to the gas station and buy a six-pack of Bud Light, a carton of Malboros and a Hustler magazine. However, as soon as they reach their 18th birthdays (except in the couple of states with an age of majority higher than 18), the full rights and responsibilities of adulthood are thrust upon them (with the exception of alcohol), with no preparation.

That seems circular, and actually backwards, to me, to say that only the people who reject rights would deserve those rights and those who would claim them do not deserve them. In my opinion that's as absurd as saying that if one claims to be immature, that's a sign of maturity.

It's true, though. Whenever I ask someone (scout leader) to go and do something, the volunteers are always the idiots who will just go and piss about. Hence why I always send the quiet ones hanging around the back that will actually do it properly.

Being asked to gather firewood by a scout leader is not quite the same as signing a legally binding contract.

We already do that, by saying that at 18 you are a legal adult (but while you may now vote and inhale carinogens, you are forbidden in most states to drink alcohol).

For the most part, people start to develop the independence of their mind during adolescence. There was a whole NatGeo article about this a few months back.

Newt Gingrich isn't just saying the law needs to treat children as adults, he is saying everybody does. He's an idiot, plain and simple.

While I personally choose to not discriminate on the basis of age, I don't want to require private individuals to treat everyone equally. I do want equality under the law for minors - this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will start treating young people the same as they treat older people. Hell, there are racist people still today, in the 2010s.

Speaking of equality under the law, here is a legal paper advocating for legal equality for minors that I find quite compelling. If you're not used to reading legal papers, the "legalese" may throw you off a bit, and it's 71 pages, but if you're interested in how the idea of equality under the law for minors could work, it's a worthwhile read.

[Trotskylvania]

Adjustment should begin at 13-15 years of age. Younger than that and children don't really have the level of cognitive development to "learn responsibility."

Your idea is stupid.

The ideas expressed in Newt's article are, and I cant believe I am going to say this, spot on. The transition from childhood needs to occur earlier, especially in the US where there are too many adults who up to and into their thirties want to behave and live like teenagers.

Got news for you, bub.

THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.

My uncles were all dropkicked into adulthood at an early age, and they still (self-admittedly) acted like idiotic man-children until they were almost 30.

Even quick glance at sociological histories of the past centuries reveals that almost no one grows up when societies tells them they have to. You still had the youth turning into urban lowlifes, bachelor playboys or the like, even when they were doing a full days work at the age of 14. Just because a few exemplars became quite adult in the past proves nothing. There are probably an equal number of people who are extremely well accomplished at a young age in the present day. Cherry picking the few exemplars proves nothing about the larger trends.

[Laissez-Faire]

If children are assuming responsibilities too late, it's the fault of the parents for not teaching them what responsibility is.

A child is not only the product of those around him or her.