Originally posted by: bozack
Question, at what age would you consider someone not a "kid", for instance I saw a post by umbrella stating that he considers someone at age 27 to still be a "kid" yet by law 18+ is the age of consent and when one is no longer considered a minor?
I would have to say 21 by all external societal evidence (obvious reasons), despite 18 being the legal answer. Beyond a certain point, age is relative to the observer's own age and experiences, which is why some may say 27 is a "kid". As a 27 year old, I do think that is pushing quite a limit. I may be immature, but I would consider that a sign of mental illness rather than age, at this point.
Neal Stephenson's Protagonist in Snow Crash made an observation about the age of 26. He stated that it marked a point in time where one realized that if a columbian drug lord killed their family, they would know that they couldn't go through a rigorous training regimen, acquire some automatic weapons, and singlehandedly take down the drug lord's ring.
It was written tongue in cheek (as was the whole novel), but it also struck me as being quite profound. Not only did he mark the age of adulthood in the physical sense (by 26, a male is almost a decade past his prime, physically speaking), but also marked the point at which fantasy dies in favor of reality.
Unless you wish to call puberty adulthood, I would be inclined to call that point adulthood, though some reach it at 30, some at 40, some never.
Obviously this sort of thing would have little bearing on military service, as
a.)the military likes their boys full of fantasy, because soldiers who don't really believe they will die, and are unable to fully understand the ramifications of their actions make better soldiers.
b.)18-27 year olds are stronger, more fit and more resiliant than any other age group.
The real question is why you would want to play semantics with what is or is not a "kid", rather than a "human being's life".
By your thinking, we should perhaps reduce the criminal penalties on anyone who kills someone over the age of 40, or maybe even consider a mandatory euthanasia program at 60. Think of all the tax breaks we could enact without those damn seniors sucking our money on Medicare.
To the people who missed the significance of the original posters assertion that division is the worst threat to this country: We already had one Civil War, and it was godawful ugly. Why the hell do you want another?
To the poster who noted out that Iraqi children don't count: :beer:
To the right wing nutjob who thinks that right wingers have a monopoly on firearms: You just keep believing.