Are Restrictions Necessary?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by devonin

The entire class doesn't recieve detention. If there's a rule against talking however, any person who is talking (even if they happen to not be disturbing those around them in a given instance) should still be punished for breaking the rule.

I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in America, sadly such a situation as MotF described occurs quite often. When there are a large number of people in a class misbehaving (which, in a public feeder school, there are a majority of the time), often the entire class is punished because the teacher cannot discern who is misbehaving and who isn't. It happened to me several times in grades 6-8, but starting in high school I moved to a public charter school, and we generally don't have behavioral issues here.

EDIT: Let me explain a bit more about where I believe MotF is coming from, since I can relate.

Americans, especially American teenagers, have a VAST range of maturity. Even people living under nearly identical environmental conditions can be a proverbial football field away from each other in terms of maturity. The more responsible, observant, and mature teenagers are often forced to suffer under restrictions because of the large number of irresponsible, immature teenagers. The responsible group is automatically lumped in with the irresponsible group simply by virtue of age similarity, which causes resentment in the responsible population. Opinions such as MotF's are born out of this; the fact that one has to suffer for the actions of another group often causes resentment toward the ordinances and restrictions designed to "contain" the other group.

I'm actually like this fairly often, as well. There are a large number of rules and restrictions that I feel are unfair and discriminatory to people of my age; that is, I feel like ageism is a growing problem, especially toward the younger generations. Even though I recognize the need for these rules and restrictions, so that certain groups can be kept in line and protected, I feel there are modifications that can be made that offer exemptions to those who prove the restriction is unnecessary toward them.

Someone I know came up with an idea, though I never really explored it, to do this. I don't claim that it is a good idea, nor do I claim it is a bad one, since I haven't particularly thought about it. Essentially, a government organization would be established that would officially handle all applications for exemption. For instance, purchasing and M-rated game while under the age of 17 is illegal in my state. A younger teen (15 or so, most likely) could go through his parents, to this organization, and request the right to purchase M-rated games by showing evidence that he is able to responsibly choose which games he is able to healthily play. The organization would then issue something like a license stating that he is allowed to purchase M-rated games, which would then be presented when purchasing a game.

The idea can of course be modified for other laws.

The immediate problem I see with this is the scale. When you have so many people wanting to apply, how do you deal with it all? Well, the first criterion for application is a desire to do it. People who aren't as concerned with video games or who believe their parents will be willing to buy them games likely wouldn't apply. Second is the consent of your parents, so that probably eliminates a good number. I'm sure other things could be added too, for instance criminal record (anything, even a misdemeanor means ineligibility, and this is something that can be checked rapidly and easily). Still, I wonder how many people would make the cut and apply.