!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
These sorts of decisions are the result of specific historic conflicts, and cannot really be understood without knowing about these conflicts. They aren't derived from first principles.
For instance, the US voting age was only lowered to 18 in 1971, partly in response to the Vietnam-War-era objection that 18-year-old men were being drafted to go kill or die overseas, but could not vote.
Meanwhile, Reagan being an ass is why the drinking age in all states got upped to 21!
Reagan is why a lot of things in this country are wrong.
Yeah, but do you know anyone who waited until 21 to drink alcohol?
I actually did. I have some minor family history of alcoholism, nothing too drastic, but enough that I figured my brain could probably use an extra couple years of development before I pushed my luck on it.
Don't know if it actually made any significant difference, but I have a pretty healthy relationship with booze, I'm no teetotaler by a longshot, but I don't drink to excess except for a small handful of parties a year, and normally go a couple weeks even a month or more between drinking.
Thats amazing. I did not have the awareness at 17 to not drink. I grew up in a house that always had alcohol but drunkenness was pretty rare. Both of my kids struggled with alcohol and figured out pretty early that it could be bad for relationships.
Not who you replied to, but I also had no interest due to excellent role models in my family for what NOT to do. I have had 1 alcoholic beverage my entire life, on my 21st birthday, and it was completely lackluster.
I will say that in my home my parents also had healthy relationships with alcohol, when I say I have some family history it's not like I grew up surrounded by drunks, I have a few aunts and uncles and such who I'd call borderline or functional alcoholics, my grandmother was an alcoholic but sobered up long before I came around, etc. There were enough good cautionary tales around, but also plenty of good role models that did a good job of setting me on a good path to be a responsible drinker.
Also, my parents are almost a caricature of responsible, boring suburbanites who did a good job of teaching me the value of a dollar and all of that boring crap that my fellow millennials complain about not learning in school, so while I very much enjoy drinking, my wallet would never let me become an alcoholic. Even the cheap stuff is too damn expensive, and life is too short to drink shitty beer.
I did. OCD, habitual rule follower. Didn't see therapy until later in my 20s.
I do, yeah. I would make them play drinking games with water so they weren’t left out. College was a wild ride
No, because I'm from Australia
The idea that virtually nothing in life is actually derived from first principles, and is instead derived from sometimes very random history, would probably deserve to go near the top of any FAQ for life. Might be one of the most common misconceptions in the entire world, the idea that somehow, some way, someone had to have created things the way they are intentionally, for specific reasons.
Instead of things just working out this way because of a handful of barely-related decisions made by basically random people here and there through history, and everyone else just going along with it because they mainly just care about their own lives, who they're dating/marrying, what job they have and what's for dinner tonight, far more than they care about the voting age.
Our world is far more haphazard than planned, overall.
Yep. But also, fake first-principles explanations are commonly offered when people ask "Why is the rule thus-and-so?"
"Why can't I vote yet? (or: marry, buy a gun, etc.)?"
"You're not old enough."
"Why not?"
"Because 18-year-olds are just more mature than 15-year-olds."
"Why? Who says?"
"Um. The Constitution!"
"But it used to say something different."
"Yep. We know better now."
"Says who?"
"Democracy!"
The 15-year-old correctly assesses that these are not real explanations, but rather rationalizations of a rule that was decided not from first principles, but rather through people in history arguing over it, sometimes protesting or even fighting, and changing the rules.
That thought hadn't crossed my mind, sounds like it's definitely worth taking a look, which should also give more glimpses about lawmaking in different countries
It's all arbitrary and most of it is based on nothing but cultural assumptions. Almost everything people think they know about teenagers, even the existence of "teenagers" as a group, can be traced to culture or marketing far more concretely than anything inherent or biological.
As others have said, there are no solid principles backing practically any of this. It's all junk science and looking for confirmation of assumptions.
I'd imagine history has a huge amount to do with this.
In Britain, the age of consent is 16. The age at which you can get married is also 16.
It's also illegal to sell alcohol to children under 18 (unless alongside a meal, with an adult accompanying them, in which case 16). It's not actually illegal to drink alcohol underage, and it's not uncommon in the slightest for parents to allow their kids to try their drinks at any age.
Britain is an old place though, so I guess things are this way because of centuries, possibly millennia of inertia.
The US is a young country, and as a result the laws are far most maliable - particularly by lobbyists. Puritans push the age limit of 'sinful' things up, capitalists keep the age limit of indulgences low.
as a result the laws are far most maliable
*malleable 😉
I'm guessing it's because different parts of us mature at different rates. Brain development continues into the early twenties, so mind-altering substances are generally regulated with that in mind. Physical maturity ends in the late teens, so things like military service eligibility start there. Other activities are based on more abstract measures like responsibility, emotional stability, etc.
In addition to vague cultural expectations, the country's surrounding legalities, daily necessities and safety nets play a role.
E.g. in Norway, we have functional public transport and easy access by foot or bike to shops. Also our roads are - by standards of countries not consisting of fjords separated by mountains - extremely narrow, winding, and wildly varying. So we both need some more maturity in drivers, and people well into adult age can and do manage perfectly fine without cars. Our age limit is 18.
In the US, the roads are generally wider and even, buses "are for poor people", plus there are places you can't realistically even get to without a car, so it is both safer and more necessary with an age limit of 16.
Similarly for age of consent vs legalities around abortion, ease of access to prevention, and sexual education. In countries with good sex ed and unproblematic access to prevention, the age of consent tends to work well when lower.
I'd also like to add that there are areas in the US that simply don't have public transportation reasonably available.
Its about 35 minutes to drive into work. I've certainly had longer commutes. That being said, the nearest bus stop would be a 30 minute drive and its not like it has a well lit secure parking lot... I would have to park on the curb in front of someone's residence in an area that has historically had issues with poverty and crime, and not just property crime, violent crime as well. I worked in that area when I was younger, and I've had enough guns drawn on me that it doesn't seem to phase me anymore, at least in that context. They want the take from the till of a dollar store, they don't wanna kill someone.
Its just not reasonable to think public transportation is a valid option in the US. Its not necessarily about public transport being for the "poors," it just simply isn't accessible for some.
The idea is that by those ages most people should be capable of doing those tasks responsibly. Not everyone is responsible enough to drive at 16, but most are.
To be fair, most first world countries seem to have settled on 18 for all of this. I think the wrong assumption is that the age limits are related to each-other, while they've been brought into law at different points in history and there hasn't been a need to change them. There are also the environmental factors, such as the driving age in the USA probably being lower as a consequence of a car-centric culture.