Underaged Poker

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
In VA, we say that you can drive when you are 16, vote when you are 18 and drink when you are 21.

I always find it amusing that Americans are responsible enough to decide who drops bombs on their behalf three years before they are allowed near a drink that might make them be sick.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that you are responsible enough to drive a two ton weapon at 30mph+ 5 years before your responsible enough to go out drinking is more ironic.

and the fact you can own a rifle before all of the above in most states is the worst part.

____________________

i have a question or two silly. you think its the parents rights, not the state to choose what a child can do...

what if:
a, the parents take no responsibilities for their childrens actions (not that rare) and so let them do whatever.
b, the parents are abusive alcoholics

and how do you account for the state having the best advisors available, advising on the best research available, more so than any parent, the state would give the same advice anyway, and unless your parents fit into the categories above i think theyd agree.

i would also like to know, what do your parents think of your gambling?

and how did you fund it? im assuming you either won a freeroll or you begged for cash then worked your way up but who knows.

Phill

[Jurollo]

Silly the fact that you are arguing this as strongly as you are and failing to see the logic in everyone's argument only proves everyone's point. Not to mention your assertion that 14 yr olds should be allowed to vote, drink, etc is absurd. The mean age of the country would drop to the spike in drunk driving and brittney spears would become president. You may think you are well versed in the ways of the world and spew off facts about abortion and the war in iraq but frankly you have no idea and that is the reason people your age are not allowed to make adult decisions on their own.

Responding to another post earlier I didn't really mean to put 18 in my "underage" category as I have been known to suscribe to the mantra of "old enough to fight for your country but not old enough to drink in it", I think 18 year olds can make conscious and logical decisions but just set that as a benchmark for my point. I don't think you would find anyone here that would be against vigorous age checks to keep CHILDREN under 18 off the real money tables.

I think with gambling as well as drinking and such it is good to make the legal ages a little over when most can responsibily engage in the task because right now in the US 18 year olds are up in arms about 21 being the drinking age, however, if it was 18, 16 year olds would be up in arms, better to start the complaining later on in life.
~Justin

[GrannyMae]

i'm not trying to be this kids parent or moral guardian. i just don't want to discuss illegal activities (for him) with him, and i don't want him clicking on my banners.

it is uncertain if this is legal for ME at 102 years old, but the terms here and at the sites are very clear about the minimum ages.

[Jurollo]

[ QUOTE ]
it is uncertain if this is legal for ME at 102 years old, but the terms here and at the sites are very clear about the minimum ages.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, i don't think there are maximums granny [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
what if:
a, the parents take no responsibilities for their childrens actions (not that rare) and so let them do whatever.
b, the parents are abusive alcoholics


[/ QUOTE ]
These are both extreme situations however I will adress them. If parents are abusive or neglegent they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law under existing child abuse and neglect laws. Parents who do these things are criminals and should be treated as such. What should happen to the children after that is a tough case. Should they be put in foster homes, or the with relatives? I won't pretend to know the awnser to that question.

[ QUOTE ]
and how do you account for the state having the best advisors available, advising on the best research available, more so than any parent, the state would give the same advice anyway,

[/ QUOTE ]

The state does not have the best advisors corporations do. The best tend to go to where they are paid the best and this is usually not at a government job. It seems to me that you are asserting that government knows how to raise a child better than the parents of that child do. We cannot take the risk of trusting government to dictate what is moral to our children, the risks are simply too great. "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!" -- Adolf Hitler. Hitler Youth

[ QUOTE ]
i would also like to know, what do your parents think of your gambling?

and how did you fund it? im assuming you either won a freeroll or you begged for cash then worked your way up but who knows.


[/ QUOTE ]

My parents don't come into the issue of me gambling as I am well over the age of 21. I funded it through neteller and the masses of people who can't calculate the odds to an inside straight.

silly

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
The mean age of the country would drop to the spike in drunk driving and brittney spears would become president

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an obsurd argument. This standard is not applied to all citizens, only youth. We don't take the right to vote away from those who are senile, alcholics, or the millions of adults who voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura. As for drunk driving it is true that there is a correlation between higher drinking ages and safer roads, but to assume that there is a direct link is presumptuous. It is true since drinking ages were raised there have been less drunk driving deaths, but there are many other factors to consider such as safer cars, seatbelt laws, and social acceptance of drinking and driving.

[ QUOTE ]
that is the reason people your age are not allowed to make adult decisions on their own.


[/ QUOTE ]

29 year olds are not allowed to make decisions on thier own?


silly

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not trying to be this kids parent or moral guardian. i just don't want to discuss illegal activities (for him) with him, and i don't want him clicking on my banners.

it is uncertain if this is legal for ME at 102 years old, but the terms here and at the sites are very clear about the minimum ages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appologize. I misunderstood your legal caution for a moral attitude. It is your right to restrict who uses your site and your banners.

silly

[froggy527]

Where are the parents!
If my dad caught me playing poker for money at
the tender age of 14. Making 15 years old would not
be an option!

[golFUR]

This post combined with others of your own make the point against you.

That some 14 year olds are capable is not in dispute. As you pointed out, some 30 year old folks are less capable.

This is why society weighs in on the issue instead of leaving it up to the parents. Not all parents are bright enough to protect their children properly.

You are certainly bright, you advocate your position well, but I'm afraid this an argument you'll never win. If society were to relax all age restrictions and rely on parents only... it'd have to go the rest of the way and let people start settling issues Old West style.

Regardless of age, some people are capable, some people need Windex to put a warning on the label. This is what society does for us, what civilization does for us, it lets us live together as peacably as possible.

Don't assume that means I support either, necessarily. Personally, I put myself well into the capable column. I personally wouldn't mind a little bit of old fashioned justice here and there, a little Darwinian gene culling to spice up the days... but at least today, I have to side with society here. Some people need protection from themselves AND WE ARE BETTER OFF FOR HELPING THEM. A 14 year old with rotten parents may get him or herself into trouble before they grow up enough to realize their potential. Society attempts to help them make it despite their parents, giving them the opportunity to pay society back and help the next generation along.

[Blarg]

Kids also are not allowed to buy guns. Do you think that should be entirely up to the parents too and not a matter of governmental regulation? I don't, and I'm a lifelong gun owner and second amendment advocate whose father taught him to shoot at age 11 or so.

Do you think kids should be allowed to vote? I don't. Most everyone I know was politically completely an idiot when I was in high school. We didn't do much reading of newspapers and had felt very little of the direct repercussions of living through any administrations. We were by and large sheltered and ignorant, even the very brightest of us. Frankly, we mostly just endorsed whatever it was our parents said was a good idea. We might have thought a bit about the validity of their arguments, but little to nothing about the validity of opposing ones. What is a kid's vote really but just a regurgitation of whatever his parents say(or a rebellion against it)? He's not the individual pursuing his enlightened self-interest one would hope a voter to be. He's more like a parrot.

Parental influence alone is not enough to produce a manageable society; most parents aren't even that good at parenting anyway. After all, what training does anyone have for it? And most parents become parents when they're little more than kids themselves.

Governmental regulation isn't a perfect answer to everything either.

Ideally, we would have perfect parents and governments so kids could be imbeciles and still all the right decisions would be made. Or, we would have perfect kids so even horrible parents and stupid governments would be irrelevant. But, the truth is, all those things average out, some good and bad in kids, government, and parents. So how do we take a shot at coming up with a workable way of them all interacting?

Well you sure aren't going to ask the kids. Even asking the adults to make every decision correctly is a recipe for disaster. So government makes rules that seem to not apply to a lot of bright 14-year-olds, but fit others perfectly. There are worse things than that -- like all the alternatives. Because the "other" not so mature, self-aware, and self-controlled 14-year-old kids are the norm.

If you can honestly say all or a huge percentage of the 14-year-olds you know would be making great decisions on drinking, driving, crime, getting into binding contracts, becoming soldiers, voting, and getting married, it would be one thing. But I find it hard to believe even a 14-year-old is capable of looking around at his friends and saying, "Yeah, these guys really have things wired. I wouldn't mind seeing Fred the Bully buying a gun. Sally the Chump would be better off getting married to this guy she met last week than waiting. Jimmy the Imbecile and Frankie the Parrot With No Mind of His Own should be voting. And Billy the Impulsive Dumbass is someone I'd feel perfectly safe seeing drive down the road."

Adults aren't all reliable and geniuses either, but not drawing a line somewhere would be foolish. Sure, a lot of 14-year-old's are very smart. Those aren't the ones the laws are made for, but for the good of society, there's still no better solution than to subject them to the same laws as their peers.