Post ATyXsKnJfW6u5TJsAa by 2ck@qoto.org
(DIR) More posts by 2ck@qoto.org
(DIR) Post #ATxEG9NrYHHPPHX6DQ by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-24T18:30:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
My mom just got her phone hacked when she called a facebook "support" number to try to get help to fix the fact that her facebook was hacked... she literally got hacked trying to fix the fact that she was hacked.... old people really should not be allowed on the internet.
(DIR) Post #ATxEGAAmcOPZr0QAT2 by hasmis@qoto.org
2023-03-24T19:43:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Oh, the first thing the hackers should do is put up a screen - If you get hacked, call this number... I would modify the statement to: Old people should use Chromebooks...
(DIR) Post #ATxFHpXcOguqOoSdXc by sergeant@qoto.org
2023-03-24T21:03:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo You'll better keep her off Failbook!
(DIR) Post #ATxFn8ALCYbX8hUxEm by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-24T21:08:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sergeant Ha!@ I wish i could.
(DIR) Post #ATxHOEiTuQZS7miyS8 by realcaseyrollins@social.freetalklive.com
2023-03-24T18:32:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Why would you call anyone if you were hacked is my question
(DIR) Post #ATxHS8s5aC339f541g by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-24T18:33:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins apparently she searched google for "facebook support" and it was the first number that came up... she wasnt at all suspicious of the fact that facebook support was posting their phone number on a website that wasnt facebook :)
(DIR) Post #ATxItnvV9Iq2G2Qmcy by Hawk1291@fosstodon.org
2023-03-24T18:41:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo im curious, was this like she let them convince her to install malware sort of thing or a remote modem hack like this: https://9to5google.com/2023/03/16/google-exynos-modem-vulnerabilities/
(DIR) Post #ATxJTkiSYvq4j4TLGK by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-24T18:48:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Hawk1291 They asked her to install AnyDesk... these scammers werent even trying.
(DIR) Post #ATxJTlKOHuBEciDdNw by Hawk1291@fosstodon.org
2023-03-24T18:52:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo ahh gotcha yep thatll do it alright.
(DIR) Post #ATxK1h3oez59Eae6eu by trinsec@qoto.org
2023-03-24T18:55:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Ehhh, my mom would've done the same. đŹ
(DIR) Post #ATxhryZN6ZvrXdIxyC by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T03:53:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo >"...old people really should not be allowed on the internet."How about Jews? Black people? Asperger's?
(DIR) Post #ATxlXbQpovnjo2qvXU by Lunatech@infosec.exchange
2023-03-25T04:34:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Welll... aren't you ageist! ;)People who scam older people (or scam anyone for that matter) really should not be allowed on the internet. <--- Fixed that for ya!
(DIR) Post #ATy5ZUipjhT6euS0xM by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T08:18:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat Nah their fine, just old people :)
(DIR) Post #ATy5jvFRy3Otp8gBU0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T08:20:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Lunatech Do you think a 12 year old should be allowed to drive a car, own a gun, and have full self-autonomy like a person of any other age? If not you're ageist.
(DIR) Post #ATyONxtjKl3cnelP72 by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T11:49:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo It's not funny.
(DIR) Post #ATyQ07SUKt8jPTmKoa by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T12:07:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat Do you fight just as hard for young people to not be treated different for their age? Do you rally so 12 year olds can drive cars and get licenses or own guns? Chances are you are far more ageist than my comment, as are most people.
(DIR) Post #ATyRQOXhXYGpsXJHHc by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T12:23:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo My dad let me drive a car when I was 12. And I had my own gun when I was eight years old. Itâs up to the parents to raise their kids. If you ask children if they would rather be on their own or live under their parent's supervision, the vast majority will live with their parents. Those who don't want that, end up as runaways.Once someone has reached emancipation, they are free and society should treat equally whether they are old or young, black or white, Jew or gentile.I understand that your OP was meant to be a joke, but what if you substituted another group in place of "old people" as I indicated in my toot. Would that be ok? Of course not. Then why do you think it is ok to discriminate against old people?
(DIR) Post #ATyRULIFYwUAxYxtiK by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T12:24:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo My dad let me drive a car when I was 12. And I had my own gun when I was eight years old. Itâs up to the parents to raise their kids. If you ask children if they would rather be on their own or live under their parent's supervision, the vast majority will live with their parents. Those who don't want that, end up as runaways.Once someone has reached emancipation, they are free and society should treat them equally whether they are old or young, black or white, Jew or gentile.I understand that your OP was meant to be a joke, but what if you substituted another group in place of "old people" as I indicated in my toot. Would that be ok? Of course not. Then why do you think it is ok to discriminate against old people?
(DIR) Post #ATyRqWbGCnh2OhQzk8 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T12:28:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat So you think 12 year olds shouldnt have the same rights as other individuals due to their age... that would be called ageist. If you can say someone should be denied rights because you assume all 12 year olds are not at their intellectual peak, then you are just as bad as someone who thinks a 90 year old should be denied rights because they arent at their intellectual peak.
(DIR) Post #ATyWFVgR9LNAbx1c5g by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T13:17:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Apparently you didn't read my toot.
(DIR) Post #ATyXHpmLVThPT8SdyS by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T13:29:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat Of course I did... I reread it and i see no reason you would assume I didnt.
(DIR) Post #ATyXsKnJfW6u5TJsAa by 2ck@qoto.org
2023-03-25T13:31:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat seems like you're both privileging age unnecessarily, although @freemo is closer when he talks about "intellectual peaks". the real issue is cognitive function, which doesn't have a cutoff point on either side which is the same age for all people...more importantly though, if we're considering a group response, restricting individual liberties should be less favored compared to providing aid to individuals and making society generally better navigable for people with cognitive deficits. doing so also makes things better for everyone
(DIR) Post #ATyXsLkA8jBL1yqrtQ by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T13:35:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@2ck Agreed with this... if we dont want to be ageist, and children are the biggest victims of this, then the solution is simple... test to allow access rather than use age... Anyone who can demonstrate they are responsible enough to drive a car can, regardless of age. But as long as we deny children almost all basic rights due to their age, based on some notion of mental capacity, then I expect old people to be treated the same... the logic is universal.@Pat
(DIR) Post #ATyXsMfEiWprszYRqy by 2ck@qoto.org
2023-03-25T13:33:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo actually, I take back part of that. @Pat is consistent with what I suggested
(DIR) Post #ATyZoMjkhjAKrUt6p6 by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T13:57:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @2ck My objection is primarily about people feeling that itâs ok to make derogatory comments about old people, when they would never make the same type of comments about someoneâs race or religion. Regarding rights for young people, people acquire specific rights as they get older. Newborns have the right to life and to live without being harmed, for example. Some of those are determined by the parents and others are defined by law. In the US, this process of acquiring recognition of rights and privileges continues until a person reaches the age 35, when all of their rights and privileges are fully recognized.
(DIR) Post #ATyaRsY6MTaqoqHOoC by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T14:04:44Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Pat My objection is primarily about people feeling that itâs ok to make derogatory comments about old people, when they would never make the same type of comments about someoneâs race or religion.And my point is you and most people would make the exact same sort of comments about kids. Applying your logic of replacing the term with other groups and seeing if it is ok âChildren should not be allowed on the internetâ, checks out as a perfectly acceptable term to use based on age, if we can say that about kids we can say it about old people. for the record I am actually with you that we shouldnt judge or take away rights from old people, but ONLY if that coincides with doing the same for children, which I also support. Regarding rights for young people, people acquire specific rights as they get older. Newborns have the right to life and to live without being harmed, for example. Some of those are determined by the parents and others are defined by law. In the US, this process of acquiring recognition of rights and privileges continues until a person reaches the age 35, when all of their rights and privileges are fully recognized.Yes, society operates by being ageist against kids.. we deny them rights because of some claim of mental capacity (even if the individual does have the mental capacity) and say its ok.So if we are to be fair the logic shoudl apply both ways, We shoudl slowly give a person rights up until they are 35, give them the right to drive at 16, right to smoke at 18, right to drink at 21, right to rent a car at 35âŚ. then we do the same as they get older, at 65 we take away their right to drink, at 70 we take away their right to smoke, at 75 we take away their right to drive, at 80 they loose all rights to sign and their next of keen has compelte custodian rights,.Afterall if we give a child rights as their mental capacity develops we shoudl therefore remove those rights as a persons mental capacity declines in old age, fair is fair.(again I dont actually support this, I am point out that most old people accept and even enforce ageism on children so they should be treated the same in kind)@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATyc4OcreILfGIRCS0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T14:22:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@PatAnd most importantly most children arent legally allowed to use the internet without their parents conscent if they are under 13.Likewise people over 80 shouldnt be allowed to use the internet without their childrenâs conscent.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATyeAw8aANRGqGWIym by hasmis@qoto.org
2023-03-25T14:46:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @Pat @2ck Oh! I am sooo old! âŚ
(DIR) Post #ATytXseIniInznkt3g by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T17:38:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemoWeâre in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parentâs call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).Thereâs a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people â everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people and old people.I think it should be based of each individualâs behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATytiKXzvkI1Ptn0CG by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T17:40:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemoWeâre in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parentâs call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).Thereâs a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people â everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people and old people (adults).I think it should be based of each individualâs behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATytkKaQktuk7LshCi by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T17:41:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemoWeâre in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parentâs call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).Thereâs a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people â everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people and old people (adults).I think it should be based of each individualâs behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATytsmQd7jQUmhKGg4 by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T17:42:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemoWeâre in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parentâs call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).Thereâs a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people â everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people (children) and old people (adults).I think it should be based of each individualâs behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATyulwvjmQPhHYBOym by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T17:52:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@PatActually it sounds like we arent in agreemnt: Weâre in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parentâs call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).Lets rephrase this to apply the logic to the elderly:âWhile they are stillyoung enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be their childrenâs call (unless the children are causing substantial harm themselves)ââŚYou are still being ageist, you are judging a child by being âtoo youngâ, much as I might judge the elderly for being âtoo oldâ. You also deem that they dont have a right to autonomy and someone else of a more mentally âsharpâ age (their parents) should dictate what rights they have.. you may not see it but you are treating children far far worse than what you are complaining about when it comes to agism. Thereâs a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people â everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.This isnt a fundemental difference atall.. everyone without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poop. Sure some people, many in fact, die before they get there. But if you live long enough eventually you will loose your mental capacity, it is inevitable.Also you do point out that if you take care of yourself you can push that age at which your mentally incapable to much farther downt he line, the same is true of children in reverse. If children take care of themselves,study, learn, are exposed to an a good environment htey will be responsible and capable at a much younger age.Almost everything about your argument is symetrical between the very young and very old, yet you insist the old deserve autonomy and rightws while children should be denied that privilage and instead their rights should be completely int he hands of other people. So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people (children) and old people (adults).No there really isnt,a s I jsut pointed out it is almost perfectly symetrical. I think it should be based of each individualâs behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.While i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.No if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license without their parents involved at all. They would need to prove they are capable by whatever tests and elderly person would have to prove they are capable to retain their license.. Neither the elderly nor the child would need anyones permission so long as they demonstrated that.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATz59xdDp5iRwtbv9c by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T19:48:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo âThis isnt a fundemental difference atall..âYes, there is a fundamental difference. ââŚeveryone without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poopâŚâThatâs flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become competent when they are children.Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain â 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.Thatâs the fundamental difference.So to say that âall old people should be denied right Xâ or âeveryone over age X should lose certain rightsâ, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that âeveryone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.â âWhile i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.âIf a parent recognizes a kidâs right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have that right at all.Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have those rights before they were taken away. âNo if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license without their parents involved at all.âŚâA license is different than a fundamental right. A driverâs license is a permit to use certain public property (roadways). It is not uncommon to see a 10-year-old driving farm equipment on a family farm (if they can reach the pedals), and it is up to the parent to decide if they are ready to do that because it is on private property. But with the public roadways, the rest of society is involved, so public law determines the rules for issuing driverâs licenses to young people.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATz5PHZrwlVW9bLeoy by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T19:51:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo âThis isnt a fundemental difference atall..âYes, there is a fundamental difference. ââŚeveryone without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poopâŚâThatâs flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become fully competent when they are children.Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain â 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.Thatâs the fundamental difference.So to say that âall old people should be denied right Xâ or âeveryone over age X should lose certain rightsâ, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that âeveryone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.â âWhile i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.âIf a parent recognizes a kidâs right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have that right at all.Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have those rights before they were taken away. âNo if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license without their parents involved at all.âŚâA license is different than a fundamental right. A driverâs license is a permit to use certain public property (roadways). It is not uncommon to see a 10-year-old driving farm equipment on a family farm (if they can reach the pedals), and it is up to the parent to decide if they are ready to do that because it is on private property. But with the public roadways, the rest of society is involved, so public law determines the rules for issuing driverâs licenses to young people.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATz5Xkpz2jLLDbvRKK by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T19:53:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo âThis isnt a fundemental difference atall..âYes, there is a fundamental difference. ââŚeveryone without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poopâŚâThatâs flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become fully competent during their childhood.Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain â 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.Thatâs the fundamental difference.So to say that âall old people should be denied right Xâ or âeveryone over age X should lose certain rightsâ, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that âeveryone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.â âWhile i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.âIf a parent recognizes a kidâs right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have that right at all.Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have those rights before they were taken away. âNo if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license without their parents involved at all.âŚâA license is different than a fundamental right. A driverâs license is a permit to use certain public property (roadways). It is not uncommon to see a 10-year-old driving farm equipment on a family farm (if they can reach the pedals), and it is up to the parent to decide if they are ready to do that because it is on private property. But with the public roadways, the rest of society is involved, so public law determines the rules for issuing driverâs licenses to young people.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATz6yYtDflV5w5mlnM by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T20:09:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat @2ck Yes, there is a fundamental difference.Nope Thatâs flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.If that were true all it proves is that people tend to die before reaching the point they are incompetent. But it isnt true, attached is an example, mental decline is nearly universal with the average person having a significant decline in cognitive abilities. For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become competent when they are children.Usually when you treat an individual as a non-human it slows their development. African slaves were considered stupid, no one realized it was how they are treated.Go back just a few hundred years and children fairly young were treated as adults, and were quite capable.Most kids would be more than capable by 12 if they were actually given the freedom and responsibility. Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain â 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.No your looking at it backwards.. there is no set age when a child becomes competent⌠there is also no set age an adult looses competency.The cognitive decline is steady as shown in the chart I shared, everyone will regress to incompetance if you carry the curve out, its just that most people die long before hand. So to say that âall old people should be denied right Xâ or âeveryone over age X should lose certain rightsâ, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that âeveryone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.âThe percentages are a bit of a strawman. By 2 yes <1% of toddlers will be able to take card of themselves⌠By 100 years old 90% of old people will be incompetent too. In both cases the numbers are more than high enough to say âthe vast majority will not be able to care for themselves wellâ If a parent recognizes a kidâs right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have that right at all.So aslave had rights, as long as their owner gives it to them⌠thats no right at all Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesnât mean that they didnât have those rights before they were taken away.The difference here is the adult actually has the right, and no one can take it away, they have bodily autonomy,a child doesnt.
(DIR) Post #ATzPT2v4Nwf2vzKwKm by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-25T23:36:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo âGo back just a few hundred years and children fairly young were treated as adults, and were quite capable.Most kids would be more than capable by 12 if they were actually given the freedom and responsibility.âPerhaps in certain environments some 12-year-olds would be able to fend for themselves, find food, cook, build shelter; but most wouldnât. And very few would be able to operate in the modern world, enter into contracts, etc. I donât think very many children under 13 have been granted emancipation by a court. âThe cognitive decline is steady as shown in the chart I shared, everyone will regress to incompetence if you carry the curve out, its just that most people die long before hand.âThank you for confirming what I said, âBut if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead.âThere is another significant difference â for those adults who become incompetent when they are older, they have competence beforehand so they can direct their care, make advanced directives, plan out an end game. Children who have not yet become competent never had competence and therefore canât make those decisions for themselves.@2ck
(DIR) Post #ATzQI1hCh6mRuMA04u by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T23:45:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat @2ck Perhaps in certain environments some 12-year-olds would be able to fend for themselves, find food, cook, build shelter; but most wouldnât. And very few would be able to operate in the modern world, enter into contracts, etc. I donât think very many children under 13 have been granted emancipation by a court.Agreed, very few old people would be able to fend for themselves in a modern society. Iâd imagine most 12 year olds would struggle as well, at first, due to how they are treated⌠but if given a chance they would outperform most adults⌠once they are away from their controlling nature long enough to bother to learn coping skills at all. Thank you for confirming what I said, âBut if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead.âVast majority of people I know who stayed healthy their whole lives have serious troubles performing in old age. My mom was a health nut her whole life, healthiest food, tons of exercize, never a bit overweight. She has no mental diseases of not.. Yes she is now incapable of learning any advanced skills and struggles with even common ones (like how to use her computer)⌠something ive seen in countless old people. In fact of all the elderly I know not a single one of them can go tow to tow intellectually with a 14 year old. I remember it was popular for a while to give people real tests from middle school and nearly none of the elderly handled it very well.
(DIR) Post #ATzQOKyPvvsJQyDlh2 by 2ck@qoto.org
2023-03-25T23:46:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @Pat please stop mentioning me.
(DIR) Post #ATzQa6ZVIxhSF6BBD6 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-25T23:48:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@2ckSure, but you can click the three dots and opt out of conversations too btw@Pat
(DIR) Post #ATzQfSr1syzGnavrcW by 2ck@qoto.org
2023-03-25T23:49:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Thanks. I muted the convo, but I keep getting notifications.
(DIR) Post #ATzSw9eYjD4A4xBZjs by Pat@qoto.org
2023-03-26T00:15:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemoI donât know about your mom and other elderly friends, but on average old people do just fine.As far as anecdotal cases go, Iâm very old and I think I do well even with my dyslexia and other communication disorder (which Iâve had my entire life). I think most here on qoto would be surprised to learn how old I am. I donât think theyâd have a clue about my age unless I mentioned it or provided contextual cues in my toots. Iâve recently had an IQ test and Iâm still above the 90th percentile. So everyone is an individual and each case is unique.
(DIR) Post #AU046Gh56Q1b7C3EPo by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-26T07:11:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Pat just as there are some young children who are exceptionally capable there are also many elderly. Its wrong to assume someones ability based on age but its fine to recognize trends of the group.The sad fact is anyone who lives past 90 has a greater chance of being in a nursing home than not.
(DIR) Post #AU09XkCO0m98DEcAYC by Lunatech@infosec.exchange
2023-03-26T08:12:43Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo Actually I think we set the age way too high for many things. Farm kids often dreive cars ar 12 or earlier. Someone in my family recently bought a an all terrain vehicle that drives like a amall car (and can reach speeds of 70 mph!) from a farmer and his 10 year old was driving it around with no problem, granted this was not on a road with traffic but in some ways it was more challenging because it wasn't a wide open road. However, that said, there's a big difference between giving kids responsibilities they aren't yet ready for (or haven't been trained to handle) and telling older people that they should not be allowed to do ceratin things just because they have reached a certain age. You may not understand it now, but you will when you go to the doctor and s/he starts talking to the person who brought you in about your condition instead of addressing you directly (pro tip, never see that doctor again!).
(DIR) Post #AU0DcwIspiov1GO16e by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-26T08:58:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Lunatech I dont think we should set ages at all... Test a persons abilities, if there is an ability they wont have till they are older, they wont pass... if you cant test for it then its just speculation anyway
(DIR) Post #AU0Dq6PqXzF899v6FU by Lunatech@infosec.exchange
2023-03-26T09:00:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @Pat @2ck Well, Dr. Freemo, you are entitled to your opinions but in this case I mostly disagree. People acquire wisdom and experience as they grow older, and that is not lost unless they suffer some specific condition such as dementia.I mean, you could make the argument that we set the age for doing many "adult things" too hig, and I might tend to agree with you. In many ways, after a child reaches puberty they could function as an adult if society would let them. But in the post I am replying to, you are taking an extreme position just to make your point, and I think it doesn't help your cause. I can't think of anyone who wants five year olds driving cars on public roads, except maybe some drunk/stoned parent who'd like to be able to send his kid to the store to buy booze and tobacco for them.Someday when our nation regans some semblence of sanity, the way we view children is definitely something that needs to be re-examined. But right now the only people who seem to want to have that discussion actually want to make things worse for kids, not better (for example, they want to allow kids to work 12 hours a day in dangerous jobs - and that's not just hypothetical, it's actually happening to a lot of immigrant children in the United States).
(DIR) Post #AU0GAYOQRFbYcG8QRE by Lunatech@infosec.exchange
2023-03-26T09:26:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Only thing I can say about that is that a test doesn't measure maturity nor the ability to draw upon experience. Many 10 year olds could probably pass a driving test but would they know how to react in an emergency situation?Then again, the same could probably be said about many 40 year olds, so I kind of see your point. I actually think we will all be a lot safer when ALL cars are self-driving AND the AI technology has been developed to the point that cars are not randomly hitting pedestrians, or plowing into the back ends of stalled cars on the side of the road. Right now self driving cars are about at the same stage of development as early steam locomotives - every now and then one's going to blow up on you!Now, would I trust an 8-year-old with a gun? Maybe one that's been raised by responsible parents in a loving home environment and that has never been bullied at school, and that has taken gun safety courses and passed a test. But here we have the maturity factor. When I was in Junior High, there were a couple of builles that I fervently hoped would meet an early demise - who knows what might have happened if I'd had an alcoholic dad and access to a gun (fortunately I had neither)? The problem with testing is it can't reveal any of the things that might trigger someone to use a gun in an irresponsible manner. Of course that again is something that's also true of 40-year-olds so maybe no one should have guns?And why we ever give anyone the right to smoke tobacco has always been beyond me - I never smoked and I hated it when people around me smoked, so much that I stopped attending public events. You know that if tobacco were just introduced today it would immediately be banned as an addictive and harmful substance; it would be right up there with heroin and cocaine. But because there is a big multimillion dollar industry behind it, it's allowed. And that fact is one of the reasons I hate living on this planet, we are so stupid about our policies. People in some states still get jailed for using pot but you can smoke all the tobacco you want? Where the hell is the sense in that? At least now we try to keep people from doing it in public places although if the fucking Republicans had their way I am sure those restrictions would disappear!
(DIR) Post #AU0gDkeDvgrkIhi4G0 by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-26T14:18:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Lunatech I also want to point out that while a test doesnt measure mature, neither does age, nor is it even a good approximation.
(DIR) Post #AU1I7nnd5xYwb1hR44 by Lunatech@infosec.exchange
2023-03-26T21:23:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I realize that too, but unfortunately test results and age are the only two things we know how to use to measue when someone has reached a certain level of maturity required. And age may well be the worst in many situations, but it's also fairer to certain marginalized people who don't do well on tests (or when the tests were constructed with a deliberate bias). If there is a third option particularly a fairer one, I am not aware of it.
(DIR) Post #AU1INJnYPH6cBN3xVQ by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-26T21:26:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Lunatech Omit age, improve tests, monitor future and historic demonstration of capabilities.Age is the leqast fair of all since it discreminates explicitly against age. Tests may be bias but atleast it is incidental and possible to improve it.
(DIR) Post #AU1UnzY507xKeFJIBs by admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org
2023-03-26T23:45:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @Lunatech Humans should not be able to do anything at all... look what we are doing! Completely irresponsible race, those humans.
(DIR) Post #AU2nqAL3wnnYylvpIm by freemo@qoto.org
2023-03-27T14:53:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@admitsWrongIfProven Truth@Lunatech