River Valley Blogs

To All wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:51 PM:

" Looks like you guys are at loggerheads. Let me bottom line it: The 21 year drinking age is age discrimination, albeit legally permissible age discrimination. Thank you, now get back to work. "

Texas Jess to the doctor wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Let me attempt to encourage you to readjust your thinking with this illustration: Suppose we pass laws that negate ALL protections against discrimination. A Black person is then not allowed into a public pool because he is Black. The city says "there is no real,actual law that allows black people to use public swimming pools. Therefore, there is no discrimination." Sound reasonable? "

One man Think tank wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:16 AM:

" doctor, I think you are getting all discombobulated over an issue of semantics. Just because there is no law against certain types of discrimination doesn't mean the discrimination isn't real or doesn't exist. So, age discrimination can and obviously does occur against young adults, even though there is no law against it. Savvy? "

Help me out to doctor9 wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:04 AM:

" No one is saying anyone over 18 should be able to do whatever they want. Only that they should have the same rights as other legal adults. Why is this so hard for you to understand? "

To Doctor9 wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:25 AM:

" No one said it was real. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If it was, the law would be right. As it is, the law is wrong, hence the discussion. Just because there is no law prohibiting age discrimination against younger adults doesn't mean that this discrimination doesn't exist. "

doctor9 wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Still waiting for any of these "three" posters to cite an actual, real law. There's a commonly-known age discrimination law out there, but it's all about giving older people an equal shot at getting hired for a job when competing with younger people. This "anyone over 18 is a legal adult and should be able to do whatever they want" law is still not getting cited. Because it's NOT REAL. "

To doctor9 wrote on Apr 8, 2008 5:02 PM:

" I think there are 2 or 3 different posters involved in the postings you cite-at least 2 because I am one.....I have always maintained that the law in this regard is wrong, and that age discrimination should protect all legal adults, not just those over 40. Hope that clears up any confusion, at least on my part. "

doctor9 wrote on Apr 8, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Assuming all these posts are from the same person: On March 31, you asked someone to explain how not allowing legal adults is not age discrimination. Then on April 1, you changed "the point" to an assertion about age discrimination law, using the word "absolutely" which leaves no room for opinion. You reasserted this on April 4, but could come up with no facts to back up your claim. Finally on April 7, you said, "as I stated, the law is wrong." But you NEVER stated that. You got caught trying to mis-quote a law you don't understand and changed your argument to try to avoid being caught. "

To New Legal Age wrote on Apr 8, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Hey, at least the law would be consistent. We need to pick one age and stick with it whereby you are a legal adult. None of this wishy washy back and forth stuff. Either you are an adult or not. If you aren't an adult, you shouldn't be in adult court or have your name made public. Too many double standards. Pick an age and stick with it! "

New Legal Age wrote on Apr 8, 2008 9:41 AM:

" We will just have to make the new legal age of adulthood 25. No drinking, smoking, voting, legal sex, marriage, etc. until you are old enough to rent a car. Then we will abolish this so called "age discrimination" you speak of. Seriously kids, if you want to lower the drinking age start showing some responsibility. The way things are now we are headed toward prohibition. "

Can ...... Not .... sleep......... wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:45 AM:

" must.....keep......posting. "

Re 4:06am wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:35 AM:

" For crying out loud, courtreporter, get some sleep! "

To Court Reporter wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:19 AM:

" You miss the point. I "no" what the law is. And, as I stated, the law is wrong. If a legal adult is discriminated against solely on the basis of age, the law should protect them. "

CourtReporter wrote on Apr 5, 2008 4:06 AM:

" Here's a clue, age discrimination does no apply to anyone UNDER 40 years old. No the law before you try to claim it has been violated... "

drinking age wrote on Apr 5, 2008 3:22 AM:

" I believe beer should be legal when you are 18 but not liquor. I also think the only place you can have a beer is at a beer bar or a beer garden. I think that would put that age group out in the public while they drink which means they can be monitored and cut off if they are too intoxicated. I feel that although they are adults they still don't act that way. Make rules, anyone who walks thru the door has to leave their car keys with the bouncer and they have to blow 0's before they get them back. "

To doctor9 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:00 PM:

" Your posts ignore the facts presented in the other posts, which is why I referred you to them. One more time: When a legal ADULT is prohibited from partaking in otherwise legal activities solely on the basis of age, it is age discrimination. Your examples are examples of MINORS being prohibited, which is different. Asking me to cite a law makes no sense when my allegation is that the law itself is age discrimination. "

Legal Age? wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Maybe we should raise the legal age to 21 or how about 25 (car rental rules, or running for Congress) for everything. After all, those under 21 seem to be proving that they are irresponsible in their alcohol consumption. Maybe they shouldn't vote, join the military, drive, or get married either. Just remember we are older and outnumber you. If you want to argue age discrimination, we should move the arbitrary age up, not down! If you want to lower the drinking age you have to prove to the adults that you can act responsibly. "

doctor9 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:36 AM:

" So, you're argument is basically: "It's age discrimination." We get that. When someone disagrees, your response is, "it's age discrimination. See my previous posts." Well, it's hard to argue with that sort of logic. Perhaps you could cite an actual law, rather than just restating your assertion? "

To DJ wrote on Apr 2, 2008 4:33 PM:

" See previous posts. It is indeed age discrimination, whether you acknowledge it or not. And no need to name call. "

DJ: wrote on Apr 2, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Age discrimination? Obviously not all the "giggling twits" are in her courtroom! Some have keyboards and monitors. To be discriminating is not a crime, it is a responsibility. "

Linda wrote on Apr 2, 2008 7:35 AM:

" I understand the need to cut blogs for length, etc. However, if you must cut a comment, at least do so to where it makes sense. You butchered mine andart of it now makes no sense. "

Linda wrote on Apr 1, 2008 5:25 PM:

" As a high school teacher for nearly 20 years, I believe that I have developed a pretty good understanding of the adolescent mind. Even at 17 or 18, teens don't always think in ways that adults would regard as logical. We often have to show them that actions have true consequences, in novels. I agree that it is far better for this teen to learn now, rather than later when the circumstances may be worse. It's like preventive medicine; diagnose it and treat it now before it develops into an irreversible disease. "

To doctor9 wrote on Apr 1, 2008 3:26 PM:

" See 8:27am post. "

sheepbuff wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Has anyone ever considered that Ramona is trying to teach this young lady a lesson earlier in life, to maybe try and turn her life around. And that many of the older ones are a lost cause, because they are repeat offenders. "

doctor9 wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:53 AM:

" To: "Help Me Out Here" - Age limits apply to all sorts of things, but there is no link between them. You start school at 5, you can drive at 16, you can vote at 18, you can join the military at 18, you can drink at 21. None of these age limits are linked to one another in any way. Saying you should drink the same age you vote is just as logical as saying you should drink the same age you start school. Look up "syllogism" for more info on this sort of logic. "

To Re Help me... wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Of course it is. What else could it be? A legal ADULT is prevented from partaking in a legal activity SOLELEY ON THE BASIS OF AGE. No one has raised this point before, but that doesn't make the point less valid. Again, what else could it be? "

To 12:35pm wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:27 AM:

" You miss the point. A legal adult can partake in each and every one of the activities you listed. To forbid a LEGAL ADULT from taking part in an otherwise perfectly legal activity is absolutely age discrimination. "

Re: Help Me Out Here.. wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:35 PM:

" We set arbitrary ages for a lot of things; hunting, driving, military service, mariage, sex, etc. The drinking age is no different. There are a lot of arguments for lowering the drinking age, but "age discrimination" isn't one of them. "

keep on wondering... wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Why Ramona is harder on a teen girl than most of the men going through her court. ?? She probably just did not like the fact that this teen might find her (Ramona) a joke for our legal system. "

Help Me Out Here.. wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:43 AM:

" I have asked this question before on other blogs, but no one has ever been able to explain to me how not allowing legal adults (18-20 years old) to drink is not age discrimination. "

Tolerance Needed wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:38 AM:

" That is all. "

Taylor wrote on Mar 30, 2008 3:23 PM:

" why would making her sit in the jury box make her think twice about drinking again? Why doesn't Judge Ramona worry about more serious crimes and criminals than underage drinking ticket? "

Two points wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:40 AM:

" This is what Ramona deserves...she reaps the reward...disregard for punishment and respect that she has sown.
I'd sure like to know the name of the giggling twit idiot, since we will certainly be reading more of her in the future. "

2centsworth wrote on Mar 29, 2008 6:29 AM:

" some just don't get it do they?? "

Eddie wrote on Mar 29, 2008 6:12 AM:

" Interesting. Ramona seems to be much more stern with a giggling teenager in her courtroom than she is with convicted violent criminals. Perhaps all the teenager should do is show deep remorse and promise to not do it again, and Ramona will let her go home with probation and a hug.... "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »