Post by: Spec ops Grunt on April 25, 2006, 01:35:35 PM
As an almost 15 year old kid, I
Pfft, land of the free.
Post by: zahc on April 25, 2006, 01:43:40 PM
Post by: cosine on April 25, 2006, 01:49:35 PM
Post by: Spec ops Grunt on April 25, 2006, 01:51:17 PM
Is there a certain age where adults immediatly think someone younger then them is automaticly and invalid?
Post by: zahc on April 25, 2006, 01:56:24 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2006, 02:19:26 PM
Post by: cosine on April 25, 2006, 02:33:11 PM
Quote from: fistful
OK, at what age do you want the full rights of an adult?
I didn't mind waiting until I was 18 for the rights of an adult, (I might get some flames for saying this but here goes: When I was 15 I wanted the full rights of an adult, but now looking back to three years ago I can see now that I definitely wasn't mature enough for everything that I wanted.), but now I find it really annoying that "Yes, you're an adult, but only partly." Hmm.
Post by: Art Eatman on April 25, 2006, 02:38:53 PM
For instance, would you really believe somebody under 35 is really qualified to serve as President?
Sure, I know people 35 years old who couldn't pour pee out of a boot with a hole in the toe and directions on the heel. But that's not "generally" or "most people".
Unfortunately, "most people" of less than eighteen years aren't responsible enough to be allowed to exercise the rights of an adult. Those who can suffer for that restriction.
But it's a good lesson: The world, or life itsownself, isn't fair. It never has been. It never will be. Never forget that. When things do go well, be thankful.
Art
Post by: Guest on April 25, 2006, 02:45:01 PM
http://www.independentmail.com/and/home/article/0,1886,AND_8195_4641568,00.html
Post by: Spec ops Grunt on April 25, 2006, 03:01:47 PM
Post by: Guest on April 25, 2006, 03:54:57 PM
Post by: hoppinglark on April 25, 2006, 06:09:18 PM
Tobacco
Firearms-all kinds
Alcohol
Automobiles
Voting
Enlisting in Armed Services
Prior to that?
15
age to consent
drive a moped/scooter (50cc or less)
just my 2 cents.
Post by: K Frame on April 25, 2006, 06:30:42 PM
Oh, and just to revisit a common refrain that I've brought up before, even the founding fathers didn't consider all rights to be absolute. The age of majority in colonial times was, in most states, 21. Voting "rights" were highly curtailed. And let's not even talk about women or blacks or indians.
Post by: brimic on April 25, 2006, 07:01:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2006, 07:23:31 PM
Post by: Parker Dean on April 25, 2006, 07:51:13 PM
At any given time a late teen may exhibit remarkable self control and forethought. Put that same teen in a group of their friends and that maturity tends to fly out the window with a sonic boom. Not every teen of course, but enough that the trend is obvious. Add guns and alcohol and the recipe for a tragedy is in place.
Move the age group to 20 and, IME, people can generally control themselves even when horsing around (guns) and are not as likely to fall prey to peer pressure (voting).
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2006, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: jefnvk on April 25, 2006, 09:22:41 PM
Quote
I'm thinking long arms at parents discretion, handguns at 15,voting and alcohol at 18
Funny, everytime I hear a minor describing that they should have the right to, and asked what age sounds right, it usually comes out to whatever age they are.Furthermore, why would you distinguish between handguns and rifles? Are handguns somehow more dangerous for a 14 year old to have than a rifle?
Since we are also talking about rights and adulthood, if the age for this stuff were dropped to 15, would you support dropping the draft age to 15?
One age limit is what is needed. Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 25, 2006, 11:05:53 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
Quote
I'm thinking long arms at parents discretion, handguns at 15,voting and alcohol at 18
Funny, everytime I hear a minor describing that they should have the right to, and asked what age sounds right, it usually comes out to whatever age they are.Furthermore, why would you distinguish between handguns and rifles? Are handguns somehow more dangerous for a 14 year old to have than a rifle?
Since we are also talking about rights and adulthood, if the age for this stuff were dropped to 15, would you support dropping the draft age to 15?
One age limit is what is needed. Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.
Post by: Strings on April 25, 2006, 11:50:29 PM
DING DING DING! we have a winnah!
You actually CAN drink and own a handgun prior to 21: IF your parents are willing to provide it (going by Fed law here: some states have their own restrictions). Heck... I recall being able to drink in the tavern at 13 s'long's mom or dad was there (and consented: his may have changed)...
want the rights of an adult, BE an adult. Wouldn't bother me at all, to have something similar to Starship Troopers, where you have to serve a term of service to become a citizen and enjoy full rights...
Post by: Guest on April 25, 2006, 11:51:08 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Perhaps it should be when no one else can claim you as an exemption on their tax return.
I think that is 25.
Post by: bermbuster on April 26, 2006, 01:54:57 AM
Quote from: c_yeager
Quote from: Stand_watie
Perhaps it should be when no one else can claim you as an exemption on their tax return.
I think that is 25.
Post by: cosine on April 26, 2006, 05:04:59 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
One age limit is what is needed. Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Post by: Brian Williams on April 26, 2006, 05:05:56 AM
Post by: Justin on April 26, 2006, 08:16:48 AM
Quote
...but this particular generation is brain dead, the thought that 18 year olds i went to school with have ANY say in our goverment sends chills down my spine.
Perhaps the reason the current generation is brain-dead has to do with the fact that our society treats them as such.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 26, 2006, 08:23:40 AM
Long experience has shown that most young'uns lack the necessary perspective and experience to make serious life and death decisions well. So we don't give them life or death decisions to make on their own.
There are also the rights of the parents to consider. Parents ought to have legal authority over their children. If we grant full rights to children, then there would be no legal way for the parents to have any say in how their children are raised. It would be left entirely to the children to decide.
Maybe that would work in some libertarian utopia fantasy. But in the real world, that would be a disastrer.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 26, 2006, 08:34:20 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
One age limit is what is needed. Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.
Why?
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on April 26, 2006, 09:09:00 AM
Those of us who have the perspective of age and experience can look back and know just HOW risky that prospect (freedom over life and death decisions, etc.) would have been for MOST of us at that age, before we understand that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
Some of you argue "yeah, but *I* am the EXCEPTION to the rule; my wisdom surpasses all known measure. It is a crime to humanity to NOT empower me with these freedoms, since *I* could singlehandedly solve all of society's ills."
Sorry, bub. It's been scientifically proven that the adolescent brain (meaning from puberty to about age 23) is FAR from fully developed; in fact, it has significant areas which are physiologically non-functioning until that process is complete.
I was one of the 'giveittomeNOW' kids, too. Tried to convince the adults that I needed an emergency exception so I could have my Dr License at 14, had my mom convinced, but it wouldn't fly with dad. Thankfully.
The results of granting freedoms before responsibility can be handled:
Death or incarceration.
Post by: K Frame on April 26, 2006, 09:19:36 AM
I figure that gives me about 2.5 years before mtnbkr's daughter parks a car on my chest.
Post by: Guest on April 26, 2006, 09:45:54 AM
Post by: jefnvk on April 26, 2006, 10:17:57 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: jefnvk
One age limit is what is needed. Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.
Why?mercedes, could work. Unfortunately, I'm gonna say that you would have to involve the father. And it would mean that the kid is no longer supported by their parents.
Post by: Guest on April 26, 2006, 10:28:20 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
...mercedes, could work. Unfortunately, I'm gonna say that you would have to involve the father.
Why? Having two people arguing over who owns the kid causes all kinds of problems now. Having one owner solves more problems than it creates.Quote
And it would mean that the kid is no longer supported by their parents.
Yes, the new adult would have to support himself.
Post by: jefnvk on April 26, 2006, 10:56:44 AM
Quote
Why? Having two people arguing over who owns the kid causes all kinds of problems now. Having one owner solves more problems than it creates.
Why? Because the kid belongs to both.The only other problem I see, is what if one decides to never accept the contract? Would there be some age at which they are automatically seperated? Say, if at 23 or 25 one party is still holding out then if the other wants out, tehy can get out?
Post by: Guest on April 26, 2006, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
Quote
Why? Having two people arguing over who owns the kid causes all kinds of problems now. Having one owner solves more problems than it creates.
Why? Because the kid belongs to both.Quote
The only other problem I see, is what if one decides to never accept the contract? Would there be some age at which they are automatically seperated? Say, if at 23 or 25 one party is still holding out then if the other wants out, they can get out?
Maybe it should be the mother's decision, alone?
Post by: jefnvk on April 26, 2006, 11:34:33 AM
I can see your point about one person making it easier. However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this. If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time. Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent. It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready. That is not always a bad thing, though. It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.
Post by: Guest on April 26, 2006, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it were the kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?
Didn't accept her own sole decision?Quote
I can see your point about one person making it easier.
I didn't say it made it "easier". I said it solves more problems than it creates.Quote
However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this. If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time. Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.
I am confused. Shouldn't I be opposed to a system that is the oppposite of my favored one? Quote
It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready. That is not always a bad thing, though. It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.
What is the bad consequence in your scenario? What would the wife be trying to force the father to do? "Buy me a fur or I'll liberate my son!"
Post by: zahc on April 26, 2006, 04:27:03 PM
You may say, 'All those complaining seem to conveniently want the age limit lowered to their age'.
I say, notice how all the people defending the tyranny are convenienly old enough that it doesn't affect them. Just another case of 'too much scary freedom for that OTHER group of people'.
The idea of a contractual 'adult contract' is an intriguing one, though.
Post by: Guest on April 26, 2006, 05:37:53 PM
Quote
Perhaps the reason the current generation is brain-dead has to do with the fact that our society treats them as such.
Nope, society created the problem. Not requiring anything of "kids these days" is the biggest catalyst. as a farm kid, i grew up working constantly, and goofing off any time i wasn't. I learned respect for my parents early, and that with responsability came rewards. a minimum of time was spent in front of the TV/video games. All that work brought me money for whatever i wanted (1st kid with a truck bought and paid for CASH in my school), and i even managed to save a bit of the money i made)unlike the majority of my peers during highschool, who did jack *expletive deleted*it other than dick around on skateboards and listen to music about suicide after school and bitch constantly about how rough they had it (or pretend to be depressed and wear all black). Don't even start me on the "ganstas".... lack of discipline and work ethic is the issue. this generation was given too much free rein too soon, it was NEVER earned.
BTW, class of 04' here.
Post by: hoppinglark on April 26, 2006, 05:56:23 PM
If we put those two at 18 then it would make sense, and while we are at it, go ahead and raise the driving age to 18, because after all the automobile is the single most dangerous consumer product.
I'm 25 by the way. So none of this would affect me directly since this year I'm finally old enough to rent a car in all 50 states.
Post by: HForrest on April 26, 2006, 11:43:55 PM
Post by: Guest on April 27, 2006, 07:37:58 AM
Quote from: Combat-wombat
This is my problem with charging minors as adults for crimes. I don't care how heinous the crime is or how much the perpetrator deserves an adult punishment, minors are legally judged to be too stupid to handle adult responsibilities, and have little freedom... so they shouldn't be treated like an adult when considering punishment for crimes.
If you are talking pre-pubescents, you should be allowed to charge the mother. She is the one that raised an uncivilized person and neglected to protect society from her property.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 27, 2006, 08:34:42 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: jefnvk
Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it were the kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?
Didn't accept her own sole decision?Quote
I can see your point about one person making it easier.
I didn't say it made it "easier". I said it solves more problems than it creates.Quote
However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this. If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time. Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.
I am confused. Shouldn't I be opposed to a system that is the oppposite of my favored one? Quote
It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready. That is not always a bad thing, though. It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.
What is the bad consequence in your scenario? What would the wife be trying to force the father to do? "Buy me a fur or I'll liberate my son!"Your fatherless society has already been tried with abysmal consequences in sub-saharan africa and welfare projects all across america.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 27, 2006, 08:50:31 PM
Quote from: zahc
Felonius Fig and others: I am 20 years old, and live half a country away from my parents on my own, and have for years now. If/When (hopefully never) I am the victim of violent crime, perhaps at my second job delivering pizza, I will be sure to remember that I'm not mature enough to legally defend my life like an adult. I have the house, the bills, and I pay the taxes. With responsibilities should come rights. Specifically handgun ownership...
I don't know where you live, but handgun posession (actual ownership at any age) is legal at 18 in many states. Carrying a handgun with a permit at 18 is legal in Indiana, I think without a permit in Alaska and Vermont.You have a very good point though. In four or five more years my ten year old daughter will (hopefully) be responsible enough to carry a gun unsupervised and within a short time after that have as much need for one as any grown woman, although not yet likely to be mature enough to marry or vote.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 28, 2006, 07:57:18 PM
Since you like contracts so much, try this. In your proposed anarchic world, sex entails a contract whereby each participant tacitly agrees to raise and support any products of said union and to support the other parent. Sound good?
Post by: Guest on April 29, 2006, 09:43:59 AM
Quote from: fistful
Merc, the children-as-property concept sounds similar to that of ancient Rome. Are you familiar with pater-familias? Sounds worse to me, though, as fathers are much more capable of supporting their kids financially. Your idea would lead to a whole lot more struggling single momma's than we have now.
Why more? Maybe it would lead to a lot fewer "single" mommas, period? Maybe the phony statist fantasy that the father will be tracked and fined all around the world through his SS number on his driver's license would give way to actual planning on how to raise the child before it appears? Why can men automatically earn more money? There would be no child support disagreements. It is usually fathers that are associated with child abuse and incest.Quote
Since you like contracts so much, try this. In your proposed anarchic world, sex entails a contract whereby each participant tacitly agrees to raise and support any products of said union and to support the other parent. Sound good?
Two owners makes it harder to assign responsibility for the child's uncivilized actions.
Post by: Guest on April 29, 2006, 09:47:38 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: jefnvk
Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it were the kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?
Didn't accept her own sole decision?Quote
I can see your point about one person making it easier.
I didn't say it made it "easier". I said it solves more problems than it creates.Quote
However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this. If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time. Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.
I am confused. Shouldn't I be opposed to a system that is the oppposite of my favored one? Quote
It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready. That is not always a bad thing, though. It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.
What is the bad consequence in your scenario? What would the wife be trying to force the father to do? "Buy me a fur or I'll liberate my son!"
Quote
Your fatherless society has already been tried with abysmal consequences in sub-saharan africa and welfare projects all across america.
I never suggest a "welfare project"; I am a Free-Market Anarchist.What actually happened in Africa, Stand_watie?
Post by: Chuck Dye on April 29, 2006, 04:46:37 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on April 29, 2006, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
... What actually happened in Africa, Stand_watie?
I don't claim to refer to Africa as a whole. In matriarchal africa, kids do, and have done what kids without fathers have done ever since...a)God created man
or
b)We were apes
which is to act like animals. Same in the welfare projects. Take dad (or mom for that matter) out of the family and you get animals.
Post by: Guest on April 30, 2006, 12:09:35 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
... What actually happened in Africa, Stand_watie?
I don't claim to refer to Africa as a whole. In matriarchal africa, kids do, and have done what kids without fathers have done ever since...a)God created man
or
b)We were apes
which is to act like animals. Same in the welfare projects. Take dad (or mom for that matter) out of the family and you get animals.
Post by: brimic on April 30, 2006, 01:43:18 PM
Quote
Of course, fathers can stay with the mom and child at their pleasure and contribute voluntarily. Forcing them to causes many negative consequences.
I like that idea under one condition: a man who fathers a child and doesn't want to have anything to do with it should be neutered to prevent him from putting any future burdens on society.
Post by: Guest on April 30, 2006, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: brimic
Quote
Of course, fathers can stay with the mom and child at their pleasure and contribute voluntarily. Forcing them to causes many negative consequences.
I like that idea under one condition: a man who fathers a child and doesn't want to have anything to do with it should be neutered to prevent him from putting any future burdens on society.Post by: Stand_watie on April 30, 2006, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
"Society" should not be burdened by anything. That (collectivism) is the disgrace. It would be solely the mother's job to raise the child. If she could persuade others to help voluntarily, great!
That would pretty well describe the family situation of matriarchal africa and american welfare projects. How do you think those are working out? 
Great!
Post by: mr.v. on May 01, 2006, 03:38:03 PM
Quote
As an almost 15 year old kid, I love having my constitutional rights taken away from me.
where does the constituion give kids any rights?Even as the founding fathers drafted the constitution they were beating their children with tree-switches...Sometimes they left independence hall just to give a stiff boot to their childrens' butts as they were granting felons freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Just be glad children have an amazing amount of rights this day and age. If this were ancient greece (a "democratic" society) you would have been legally molested by 30-40 guys when you turned 10...but maybe one of them would have bought you Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as a symbolic "reach around".
Post by: jefnvk on May 01, 2006, 03:51:19 PM
Quote
If this were ancient greece (a "democratic" society) you would have been legally molested by 30-40 guys when you turned 10...but maybe one of them would have bought you Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as a symbolic "reach around".
Huh?
Post by: Guest on May 01, 2006, 05:33:03 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
"Society" should not be burdened by anything. That (collectivism) is the disgrace. It would be solely the mother's job to raise the child. If she could persuade others to help voluntarily, great!
That would pretty well describe the family situation of matriarchal africa and american welfare projects. How do you think those are working out? Great! Post by: Stand_watie on May 01, 2006, 07:31:25 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
...Why are you ignoring that I said that I advocate no welfare (where strangers are forced by the state to pay for other peoples' needs)? American projects are state subsidized.
It's nice that we wouldn't have to subsisidize welfare, but that hardly alleviates the problem of kids not having fathers.
Post by: Guest on May 02, 2006, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
...Why are you ignoring that I said that I advocate no welfare (where strangers are forced by the state to pay for other peoples' needs)? American projects are state subsidized.
It's nice that we wouldn't have to subsisidize welfare, but that hardly alleviates the problem of kids not having fathers.Post by: Stand_watie on May 02, 2006, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.
Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.
Post by: Guest on May 03, 2006, 06:20:55 AM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.
Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.I am an anarchist so all I'm saying is that it is worth a try to consider children the property of the women that gave birth to them as the best way of dealing with children and their legal implications. These would include crime/punishment, support, abortion and divorce/custody. Up until a certain age or level of development the mother is responsible for the actions of the child. After that, the child is responsible.
Post by: jefnvk on May 03, 2006, 09:16:57 AM
Post by: Guest on May 03, 2006, 12:17:48 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
So why not make the father the sole parent with responsibilities?
Because there is never any disagreement about who the mother is?The mother could sell/give her property to others, of course, including the father.
Post by: Stand_watie on May 03, 2006, 03:12:32 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
Not every "problem" can be solved by laws.
Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.I am an anarchist so all I'm saying is that it is worth a try to consider children the property of the women that gave birth to them as the best way of dealing with children and their legal implications. These would include crime/punishment, support, abortion and divorce/custody. Up until a certain age or level of development the mother is responsible for the actions of the child. After that, the child is responsible.
Post by: Guest on May 03, 2006, 05:07:48 PM
Quote from: Stand_watie
Quote from: mercedesrules
Quote from: Stand_watie
Indeed. In this case you've proposed we change a status quo of thousands of years with (I presume) a law taking away a father's rights and responsibilities to his children.
No, with the repeal of laws forcing fathers to act in certain ways. Different cultures already experiment with childrearing duties. The US's method isn't really working out all that well, anyhow: witness 50% divorce rate, questions on punishing child criminals, SS#s required on driver's licenses to track "deadbeat dads", constant abortion debates (with bombings), murders over custody disagreements, paternity suits, talk about getting everyone's DNA, restraining orders, etc.I am an anarchist so all I'm saying is that it is worth a try to consider children the property of the women that gave birth to them as the best way of dealing with children and their legal implications. These would include crime/punishment, support, abortion and divorce/custody. Up until a certain age or level of development the mother is responsible for the actions of the child. After that, the child is responsible.
Post by: brimic on May 03, 2006, 05:27:16 PM
Quote
The solutions are based on the idea that a stateless society would have less institutionalized coercion and more individual liberty.
Only if the local warlord allows it.
Post by: Guest on May 04, 2006, 06:00:43 AM
Quote from: brimic
Quote
The solutions are based on the idea that a stateless society would have less institutionalized coercion and more individual liberty.
Only if the local warlord allows it.
Post by: RevDisk on May 04, 2006, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: cosine
Hey, you think it's bad at age 15, well, legally I'm an adult (18) but guess what? I can't drink, buy a handgun, etc. That's probably my biggest pet peeve. If you're going to define someone legally as an adult, give them all the rights and privileges of an adult.
Hey, when I was 18, the government gave me access to handguns, automatic weapons and tracked vehicles. Yet, they said I wasn't trustworthy to drink or own handguns. The same govt that gave me a belt fed 40mm freakin automatic grenade launcher claimed that I was not responsible enough to own a .22 plinking pistol or pick up a six pack after work. SighUh... Yep, makes perfect sense.
Post by: mr.v. on May 04, 2006, 11:07:34 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
Hey, when I was 18, the government gave me access to handguns, automatic weapons and tracked vehicles. Yet, they said I wasn't trustworthy to drink or own handguns.
Yeah...but they figure it's okay for a youngster to operate a 40mm grenade-launcher so long as someone with a gruff, authoritative voice is constantly informing he or she that this person is a "snot-nosed little maggot" whom he can "crap bigger th'n"