I want an infant to be president of the USA. Or better yet, an unborn child.

@krellin

This is not an argument. I would love to argue with you, if you would be so kind as to engage me up on the level of the points I have supplied. Instead, you resort to the banalities of personal attacks (case in point), and emotional engagements (look up the meaning of hysteria, seriously).

I (and other posters) have dutifully outlined good points to counter your initial arguments, and you have yet to respond to them. I want you to see that you are not engaging us on the level of reason and by definition are supplying an irrational argument.

Irrational and hysteria are lovely modifiers by the way, but they don't mean a thing when used out of context. Please have some substance in your next post.

@kaiser - dude. I'm not even reading that because I'm tired of your "I'm smart, you're dumb" mantra.

@kaiser - if you want to argue with me personally, take it off the forum - because you are becoming the thing you CLAIM to hate, you fucking hypocrite.

@figlesquide: Of course age should be a factor. Surely it's not okay for a twelve year old to sail around the world solo? The question is which age.
Risk is a factor here and so is experience and the ability to make sound decisions. Your run was not as risky; nor did it require as much skill and experience. Nor was the consequence of it going wrong so drastic for other people. Consider how much it will take to rescue this girl.
As far as her own decision making goes, she is an adolescent, she's not mature enough, mentally. I don't mean how intelligent she is. I just mean that what she thinks she wants now will change. Not everything. Maybe she will sail around the world again, as an adult; but if she does then at least she really will know what she wants.
I have suggested 16 is too young. If not 16 which age is too young?

I don't see why there should be an age limit on holding high office no.
If someone is deemed suitable by the electorate why should they be prevented from taking post.

Watch out spyman - your about to get gang-banged by a bunch of guys that view 16 as not too long ago and cant' comprehend the difference between "intelligent" (there are a lot of intelligent people here) and "maturity/wisdom". It's a nuanced discussion that, sadly, won't play here. Children - even smart one - tend to be much bigger risk takers because of that pesky maturity/wisdom thing. Goes back to my question of a hour ago -- did Abby choose on her own to go through a region of known seasonably bad weather - a risk an older, wiser, more mature veteran sailor has said was an unwarranted risk (particularly since her bid for "youngest-ever" had already failed).

@krellin,

I'm trying to engage you in a public argument, which, I assume, is what this thread is for. I haven't claimed that you were "dumb", I haven't claimed to "hate" anything. I've pointed out that you STILL have yet to give me a valid response as to the sailing incident. If you don't want to argue, just don't respond to this post, but do take this to heart: When having a debate with someone, you have to actually provide logical claims not based in your emotions (that's hysteria). You can't go around insulting people and expect them to take you seriously, and you need to listen to what the other person is saying.

Again, if you don't want to have an argument about this, don't respond to my post, but do keep what I said in mind for the future.

"But save it in a file...read it 25 years from now and THEN shoot me and email and tell me what you think. At 18, you think 10 year olds aren't too smart. 10 year olds question the logic of a 5 year old. 5 year olds can't understand 3 year olds. So...trust me...someday 18 won't be as wise as you think it is..."

Well, the reason for that is obvious.

No-one says something because they think it is wrong.
People's opinions change
Therefore people always think that they have, as their opinions changed, become better informed etc.

Also, your argument, "you don't understand because your a young adult" doesn't really help convince anyone. As for your perspective changing, that makes sense but when making judgements of a life and death nature *Your* perspective* should* be* ignored* in* favour* of* an* objective* analysis* of* the* risk* level*.

Krellin I am quite to hear the arguments of 16 year olds and I will respect their arguments no less for it. There are some very young debaters on this site.
That said I agree with you about maturity. It' s partly a physical thing to, apart from just experience. Perhaps brain chemistry and hormones? That sort of thing.

@Spy: Why? If they were capable then I don't see why not.
Now I don't see how a 12yo *could* be capable, but as above the issue should not be the age

Typo (I am not very good at typing on my iPhone).
... quite happy to *hear the arguments of 16
... some very *good young debators..

@ spyman, I maintain that a mature 16 year old is possible, and in fact that you can find evidence of mature 16 year olds achieving wonderful things. Furthermore, it isn't really relevant to the risk that seems to have gone wrong, unless you are making the claim that her being in trouble was because she was being silly and irresponsible during this storm...

@ Ghost -- Well, my original proosal about PARENTING implies that my whole point of discussion IS coming from a parent's perspective. There is no absolute right or wrong in this discussion, despite what anyone feels - myself included - so the entire debate/discussion/argument has entirely come from each individuals point of view. I totally get that, even if you all don't believe I do. I put up a post KNOWING it be provocative to ignite exactly the discussion that has taken place - to examine the difference in thinking between people, pure and simple. My argumnent that you don't understand where I am coming from as a parent is COMPLETELY valid, because that is the only way I see this story, just as you view it from the awesome enthusiasm of youth - knowing in your heart that you are capable of anything you want to do - such is the joy of youth.

I've actually thoroughly enjoyed this discussion - even the unwarranted, childish personal attacks on me - because it's all illuminating.

2spyman - I never said I can't hear the arguments of a 16 year old. I absolutely respect them - I respect the hell out of a 16 year old able to formulate a complete sentence, let alone an entire argument. Don't misjudge me by thinking I have no respect for youth, because I do. There are other times where I will perhaps sway my judgement one way or the other based upon that knowledge of youthfulness - and I believe (as does society in general) that such judgments are correct.

I'd love to sit down with Ghost over a beer (of root...lol) and discuss a wide range of topics...i just wouldn't put him in charge of my 16 year old daughter! lol

@kaiser...if you want to personally attack me - do it off the forum. Grow the fuck up.

The problem of the argument against letting a 16yo go out on her own is that people here are arguing that all 16yo are irresponsible and immature. Universal statements like that are just not plausible. There will always be an exception to the rule, and obviously this girl is one of those exceptions.

I don't think this accident was necessarily due to her incompetence. Indeed she might have capability beyond her age (might, to some extent).
I am talking about get ability to make such a profound and dangerous decision which might affect the course of her life. I guess that what I am getting at is that young people are so fickle. They change a lot very quickly.

@Ghost - and you have now stated the exact concern that I was expressing: Was she in trouble because she was being silly and irresponsible? We'll never know the answer to that. We'll never know if the silly and irresponsible behavior (if it was such) was because of the enthusiasm of youth, or a character trait that will be with her forever. Takes the discussion back to the base question: Are children more or less often silly and irresponsible?

Regarding a question of hormones and brain chemistry -- the answer is YES. The brain of a youth operates differently than the brain of an adult, due to hormones and brain chemistry...sometimes causing behavior that would appear irrational to an outside observer...

And finally, the bait question, "TGM who do you think should pay the bill for her rescue?"

Apparently, "The rescue come out of public monies. news.com.au says the Australian government will pay. I am fine with that. But I am curious to hear what TGM thinks."

Which is interesting at least because you surely know what I think. It is not appropriate for anyone to be required to pay for it by law.

Now this surely is a case where the risk of harm coming from non-action by the government is virtually zero. There would be three major ways in which it would be paid for:

1. Extreme-Sport Insurance.

This would be a fairly high premium insurance, but on the flip-side, it would be rapid response and (in order to attract business) a no-strings attached insurance (even if you were doing it wrong, you get protected). The major issues of insurance models would not be the case.

2. Charity.

A well supported coast guard service could exist without much difficulty. Indeed I remember hearing that a British Coastguard Charity was receiving so much money that they were funneling a substantial proportion to other public safety organisations.

3. Business Sponsorship.

Youth orchestras, marathons etc. gain sponsorship. It would be a PR boon for a business to have their name attached to the helicopter that saved the brave 16 year old girl from the clutches of sharks and pirates (or whatever it is this time of day), such that business would indeed sponsor. Indeed many businesses just donate to charities anyway.

I am not talking about her conduct during the voyage. I mean the decision to embark in the first place.
Of course there is always a chance that her lack if experience was a factor in her needing to be rescued. I don't know.

@ krellin,

I capitulate. I don't take back what I said, but if you won't pay heed to by advice, there is no point in me giving it.

@kaiser - it is certainly NOT obvious that this girl had the maturity to handle this trip - given that she sailed into a region during a time of year that veteran sailors would not sail in to...and she did this knowing that her bid for "youngest ever" had already been lost. Rational behavior? She could have waited and still completed her voyage with a much smaller chance of encountering brutal storms.

I really hate this thing about Age <=> maturity
Sure, there are lots of really immature 16yo's who shoudln't be allowed anywhere near anything remotely useful, but equally there are many 30yo's who shouldn't.
Age *shouldn't* be the limiting factor.

Now, how else could you judge maturity? Well on an elected system its quite easy: people won't vote for someone they don't want in. For other things (such as who *gets* to vote) its much harder.

Thanks for answering my question TGM. I am familiar your very laisez-faire views, but I was wondering if this might be the exception to your rule. I need to think about what you just wrote.

I am saying krellin that in a dangerous situation it is likely that the matter at hand is not her age, but her skill-level. What young people can do is create or fall into risks in normal situations, but when a risky situation arises such that it is immediately obvious that it is risky, then I doubt that age is a factor.

Finally, the matter is emphatically empirical and objective. The level or risk that was being taken is certainly objective (even if uncertain). As for the amount of risk it is worth taking, that is simply an analysis of the relative costs and values, and there are, I maintain, truth statements about that also. It would be objectively wrong for her to do it if it posed a 50% risk of killing her, and objectively wrong to stop her if it presented no additional risk to other activities. That it becomes more uncertain as you move to the middle does not mean that it becomes less objective, only more difficult.

Alas I don't think suggestions 1 to 3 are going to rescue her in time. But maybe things will change in that direction someday. Not on this occasion.

"@kaiser - it is certainly NOT obvious that this girl had the maturity to handle this trip - given that she sailed into a region during a time of year that veteran sailors would not sail in to...and she did this knowing that her bid for "youngest ever" had already been lost. Rational behavior? She could have waited and still completed her voyage with a much smaller chance of encountering brutal storms."

Surely that she wasn't doing it just for the sake of being the youngest ever shows that she isn't doing it for the wrong reasons. Sailing around the world to have sailed around the world, youngest or not, is a pretty poor reason. Sailing around the world for the experience, the thrill, the joy is justified

@ krellin,

Whoa! Careful flinging those terms around, you could confuse someone! In terms of her decision to sail into the south Indian Ocean, maturity has nothing to do with that. Experience plays a role in that and she, though she has lots of general sailing experience, simply does not know that part of the world. So in reality, given what she knew, she actually did make a rational decision. Without that experience, waiting at sea (I take it you are not a seafaring man) or in a dock, would have been an irrational decision.

"Alas I don't think suggestions 1 to 3 are going to rescue her in time. But maybe things will change in that direction someday. Not on this occasion."

Well, in cases 1 and 3, the insurers or the sponsors would be employing a coast-guard to patrol the waters, and it would just be a services of the coast-guard as it is a service of the government coast-guard now.

Sorry Krellin I did not mean to imply that you don't respect 16 year olds opinions. But nor do I mean to belittle young people either, and I wanted to be clear on that.