Yeah, end it, but if the parents both gain citizenship legally, then I don't have a problem with underage children then being considered citizens. That seems reasonable to me.
Another comment mentions everyone earning citizenship through service to the country. I think this is also a decent idea, but there are a lot of issue that would need to be addressed in implementing this.
...or maybe words matter because they shape the way we think. Most uses of crass words are lazy and nearly meaningless. 'F*** that!' only tells me you probably don't like something, but not why. I would say it's poor use of language and only useful for emotional emphasis... not for much actual communication, but that's just my opinion.
I haven't yet adequately thought this issue through, but I thought I'd post my train of thoughts here anyway. Maybe others can help me think this through.
I don't like the idea of the government deciding who lives and who dies, but the government is supposed to protect its citizens.
The State is empowered to end those who desire to kill and oppress those it protects. This applies to foreign nations who attempt to attack and invade, why not also to individuals?
I also think it matters what we as a society allow. Will we uphold justice or not? Is the death penalty justice? Is the life-long incarceration and care-taking of someone who's embraced evil considered justice? is it just to end the life of someone who has ended another's life?
Money certainly shouldn't decide whether someone dies or not. In my mind this is about justice, good, evil, and how we remove bad elements in society so society can flourish.
I also think it matters what we as a society allow. Will we uphold justice or not? Is the death penalty justice? Is the life-long incarceration and care-taking of someone who's embraced evil considered justice? is it just to remove the life of someone who has removed another's life?
It sounds like Oberlin needs to fire some people immediately.
How much money should we pay them to 'disincentivize the monetary gain aspect of the job'? There will never be enough. More money is not the answer. Term limits comes to mind. Maybe 'Politician' shouldn't be a career.
I'm just imagining a Batman and female Joker meets Twilight movie. No, please, no.
...and then Disney sued him for all he had...
So... who decides what's fake news and what isn't? Is it based on what's accepted as true by society? What's accepted as true by the scientific community? Back in the day would a heliocentric view of the solar system be considered fake news? Who decides?
I think it's good that they aren't outright censoring medical 'fake news', but are pairing it with articles from 'actual professionals'. Ah, but who decides who's an 'expert'?
This is my first attempt to express this, so it's not particularly well written, but here it is.
I have come to the conclusion that, without an external, objective foundation/framework for ethical and moral behavior, destruction is only a step away. Without an objective framework every held belief is subjective to the individual's will to believe... and we all know people are notoriously fickle especially when confronted with a difficult situation.
This, I think, is why, as a civilization discards religion and becomes secular, we see an erosion of freedoms and rights and eventually the civilization destroyed.
Not all objective ethical/moral frameworks are created equal of course. Christianity is the only objective foundation that truly values every individual by stating each person is made in the image of God and every person is to love every other person. I believe Judeo-Christian values are necessary for a free and civilized society whether you believe in God or not. Anything else eventually allows the erosion of society.
Hmmm... perhaps so many people adhere to their group identity because, if they're judged on the content of their character, they're found lacking.