Ageism sucks

[Blind Pew]

What's unique about ageism relative to other forms of discrimination is that it's a time-dependent factor and everyone has the expected inevitability to transition through each of the sides.
In the case of juveniles, they'll eventually grow out of it (couldn't help myself) and become the very adults they believe are robbing them of rights.

Just because you are no longer being discriminated against doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others.

I find this is a severely biased account. Yes, ageism is a reality, but there's a reason in the majority of cases. There are exceptions, but young people on average are generally more reckless than elderly people. This would indicate a lack of wisdom. Why else would the majority of crashes on the road be caused by people between the ages of 16-25?

By your reasoning, anyone who doesn't exactly fit your narrow-minded view of "mature" should be discriminated against. And hey, while we're at it, why don't we discriminate against black people and women too. WTF?

Do you think that because someone is different from you, they shouldn't be treated as a person? Do you think that only people who are exactly like you should get equal rights?

[DJisbored]

Age can't be compared to gender or race; it changes every second, and it's the same for everyone. The whole point of the "discrimination" of younger people is because of little outbreaks like this. It would be incredibly difficult for a twelve year old to do the same job as a thirty-five year old; that's why schools and other "Institutions" aren't succumbing to the will of every child who thinks they're right. Also, kids are treated as people. We're not enslaved or locked up in cages; we're just still learning.
I want to see you try to keep the same point of view, when you're 50.

[Sandurz]

Age can't be compared to gender or race; it changes every second, and it's the same for everyone. The whole point of the "discrimination" of younger people is because of little outbreaks like this. It would be incredibly difficult for a twelve year old to do the same job as a thirty-five year old; that's why schools and other "Institutions" aren't succumbing to the will of every child who thinks they're right. Also, kids are treated as people. We're not enslaved or locked up in cages; we're just still learning.
I want to see you try to keep the same point of view, when you're 50.

Pwnd.

[nerodx]

Okay seriously you keep saying that we're being discriminated against. HOW. Why do you think this. Because we are forced to go to school? That's so people can become functioning members of society and we need it. Even if you think some of the stuff you learn is pointless it is still keeping you from becoming lazy and lifeless, it gives you something to do, and without it your life can and will fall apart. Do you think we're being discriminated against because we can't do things such as alcohol, drugs, or sex? Do I REALLY have to explain why these would be bad for kids? We can't handle things like these yet on such a level. That's why you need to wait and mature. No matter how mature you think you are now, you're not, get over it. Is it because you cannot vote? This is the most reasonable suggestion, but still should not be changed. Kids are more easily willed and can't see the big picture. Face it, we all go after whoever is presented as cool and popular. Or whoever is NOT popular, simply to seem rebellious and different. Even if you think you could, a large portion of the population would end up voting for whoever Disney is backing.
I really hope you can come up with a legitimate reason why we are being discriminated against. I don't have a job (at least not a full time one) I don't pay bills or rent, and get my own steady supply of food, water, and family. I'm content. Get over yourself and realize how good you have it.

[Renegade_Turner]

Certainly, this raises the question of status during the expensive university years, but I also think higher education ought to be a free right, or at least inexpensive like in, well, anywhere but the United States where it's upwards of $40k a year.

That's what's odd. In Ireland pretty much the highest fee paid for college is the 12,000 a year for studying to be a barrister, and that's classed as outrageous.

Also, when the government proposed bringing in fees for college, a protest occurred in Dublin in which tens of thousands of students from all across the country staged a protest march in outrage. This really puts it in perspective when you look at America's third level.

The thing is, America's best institutions at 3rd level are obviously better than Ireland's best institutions. Trinity College Dublin is close but other than that in terms of prestige it can't match up with schools like Harvard or Yale.

However, education at these colleges come at a price. I find the notion of anything about 10,000 a year for an education as utterly unbelievable.

I find this is a severely biased account. Yes, ageism is a reality, but there's a reason in the majority of cases. There are exceptions, but young people on average are generally more reckless than elderly people. This would indicate a lack of wisdom. Why else would the majority of crashes on the road be caused by people between the ages of 16-25?

By your reasoning, anyone who doesn't exactly fit your narrow-minded view of "mature" should be discriminated against. And hey, while we're at it, why don't we discriminate against black people and women too. WTF?

Do you think that because someone is different from you, they shouldn't be treated as a person? Do you think that only people who are exactly like you should get equal rights?

Did you just compare the rationale of a child to that of a black man or a woman? Do you know how incredibly insolent that sounds?

Also, when did I say young people shouldn't be treated as people? I'm saying they shouldn't be given the same privileges and responsibilities of adults. Nice straw man argument!

And you're not talking about human rights, you're talking about voting rights and legal rights.

While young people are discriminated against in some ways because they are not deemed to be responsible enough to consume alcohol or tobacco, or to vote, or have sex, they are also given other things on a positive note. Generally anyone below the age of 14 cannot be held as criminally liable, although there are exceptions in extreme circumstances. Is this not a good thing? Can adults argue that this is discrimination and infringing on their rights as people?

Also, if a young person is charged 1 dollar for a bus, and an adult is charged 2 dollars, can the adult say that they're not being treated as a person?

Come on, Sir, you're calling me narrow-minded while you have this intensely tunnel-visioned view that everything favours adults and nothing favours young people.

Not biased whatsoever. Who's going to take you seriously? I don't think a single person has agreed with you, and most of the people disagreeing with you are teenagers!

Even if you think you could, a large portion of the population would end up voting for whoever Disney is backing.

Yeah, and Walt Disney was a racist and anti-semite. Just like Mel Gibson.

[DJisbored]

…because we can't do things such as alcohol, drugs, or sex…

While I agree with you on all points, that sentence made me lol.

[Fournine]

What's unique about ageism relative to other forms of discrimination is that it's a time-dependent factor and everyone has the expected inevitability to transition through each of the sides.
In the case of juveniles, they'll eventually grow out of it (couldn't help myself) and become the very adults they believe are robbing them of rights.

Just because you are no longer being discriminated against doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others.

You entirely missed my point, as evidenced by your latter equivocation of ageism with racism and sexism.

I was pointing out that it is a unique case of discrimination in that those subject to it inevitably transition between the three main groups, Juveniles, Adults, and Elderly, and thus experience all sides of the issue. I was not making a statement as to its inherent legitimacy, I was merely illuminating a reason why it may not be recognized as a form of discrimination as the condition is universal and ephemeral.

However, you do have a legitimate point that one subjected and later removed from discrimination does not earn a right to - and ought not practice - becoming the discriminating party.

I find it prudent to further state that at no time during my development did I feel discriminated against due to my age - merely guided.

[Fournine]

What happened? I rather enjoyed this topic.

Guess I'll play devil's advocate, and point out another side of agism -

Senior Discounts
From what I understand, senior discounts originated because people reaching the age of 65+ was rather rare. This rarity stemmed from a combination of factors:
Small population of cohorts - the global population was roughly 1.5 billion turn of the century.
Lethal childhood disease - mostly wiped out by the acceptance of the germ theory and adoption of vaccination, but still a problem with things like smallpox.
Medicine targeted at elder-specific diseases - treatments not yet developed for cancer, cardiac disease

As it was rare, providing discounts to the elderly - and I'll presume they retired from or could no longer work - worked as an acceptable loss and promotional advertising, eventually becoming standard fare (pardon the pun) so that one could not compete without offering these discounts against a business that did.

Now, we're facing the Baby Boomer generation entering the pensioner age group. This unprecedented population bulge means a sharp increase in those eligible for senior discounts, social security, and similar preferential treatment for the elderly. This population of incoming pensioners had a large group to begin with, followed by advances in medicine essentially guaranteeing entrance into the 65+ group.
With a slowing economy and the prospect of lost revenue due to senior discounts, plus the prospective collapse of the social security system, the aging Baby Boomer population is a threat to the economic system.
Furthermore, as advances in medicine have also improved the quality of life and ability of the elderly to remain active, many of these retiring Baby Boomers still have the capacity to continue working and generating an income.
They're not the rare, retired, unable to work elderly of the earlier century. Thus, is it still OK to maintain the preferential treatment of the 65+ age group?

[rebel28]

Yeah man, ageism really gets me down, because I'm a teenager, anyone who's an agiest thinks I like to go party with my friends and be reckless. (Well that's what it's like in Coventry)
If I'm doing Parkour, people will probably think I'm just messing around (I don't like to be judged)

it sucks

[Fournine]

You're a traceur? Amazing - I admire that. What do you normally do during your PK runs?

[Renegade_Turner]

Hahaha, Coventry City suck.

Yeah man, ageism really gets me down, because I'm a teenager, anyone who's an agiest thinks I like to go party with my friends and be reckless.

You see that as a bad thing? I'm rather concerned when teenagers DON'T party with their friends and be reckless.

[Fournine]

*raises hand* That would be me, Ren, years back.

[Uberbeard]

We are just as smart, if not smarter, than most adults. We have a completely fresh view on the world, unhindered by the bigotry and prejudices of the previous generations, as long as they don't force those prejudices onto us.

HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaahahahaaaheheheeeee... hehehahaha... heheheh... heh.

...

Don't worry kid. You'll grow out of it.

I think this sums up how I feel.