Teen curfews

[Gustaf]

I think most of us has a sense that young people (in particular young men) are pretty aggressive. With most people this decreases with age. I mean, visit any schoolyard where a bunch of young boys aren't being supervised. Most games they come up with will basically be about fighting or testing each other physically. I think there are good reasons to assume that aggressivity is to an extent connected with youth.

I'm in high school and, uh, no.  There is some fighting, but for the most part I see people playing bloody knuckles with quarters (dumb, but not violent).  I do not at all agree that anywhere near the majority of male teenagers are criminally aggressive.

Also, once you exclude "serious" criminals I believe young people tend to dominate crime statistics by a mile. So the link is not in any way weak and that it is causal is under-pinned by biology, I think (has to do with developing the ability to fight for the tribe, for food and whatnot. Kind of like how lion cubs will roll around fighting each other).

And so do minorities and males in general.  No one is arguing against the points you are making - that most criminals are young males, and minorities - commit an unusual number of crimes.

The issue is whether the criminalisation of their being out at night is justifiable, considering that there has been no study that has scientifically proved that it really doesn't that much in reducing crime rates.  Do you not think it is fair that the law-abiding among us demand at least that before the right to be outside for a third to a quarter of the day is taken away from us?

You've got points but consider that Gustaf is a euro nanny state transnational progressive so attempts to get him to consider solutions NOT involving the nanny state probably won't work too well

You on the other hand got no points, but considering that you're a megalomaniac who tries desperately to be special by adopting ridiculous opinions on subjects you know little about, attempts to get you to consider thinking and such probably won't work too well, and I will hence refrain. Making up terms to slap on your opponents isn't really a strong debating technique though, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, there is, once again, links between being a young male and violence that is inherent biologically and pretty obvious. A lot of perfectly normal people get into fist-fights when they're young. YOu can pick almost any crime  and many youths will have either personal experience of it or know someone who has. This is not the case with older people. If a 40-year old says he got in a fight the other day, he's most likely a drug addict, in jail, etc. When it comes to blacks or Hispanics, one would have to isolate the race factor, removing things like poorer education, incomes, etc. I doubt the statistics would be as harsh. Also, crimes committed on the streets, which is what a curfew would aim at, is even more typical of youths.

[tik 🪀✨]

Seeing as how I have a penis and am under 30 years old, I would greatly like to go outside and and commit various violent crimes. However, it is late!!! I will stay at home and bake cookies!

[Alcon]

You on the other hand got no points, but considering that you're a megalomaniac who tries desperately to be special by adopting ridiculous opinions on subjects you know little about, attempts to get you to consider thinking and such probably won't work too well, and I will hence refrain. Making up terms to slap on your opponents isn't really a strong debating technique though, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, there is, once again, links between being a young male and violence that is inherent biologically and pretty obvious. A lot of perfectly normal people get into fist-fights when they're young. YOu can pick almost any crime  and many youths will have either personal experience of it or know someone who has. This is not the case with older people. If a 40-year old says he got in a fight the other day, he's most likely a drug addict, in jail, etc. When it comes to blacks or Hispanics, one would have to isolate the race factor, removing things like poorer education, incomes, etc. I doubt the statistics would be as harsh. Also, crimes committed on the streets, which is what a curfew would aim at, is even more typical of youths.

You're still arguing a point that's not the point that everyone else here is arguing about...

Of course, if you control for income, crimes go down!  But why should you control for income when creating such a law?  What practical relevance does that have?  We're not arguing that youths are more likely to commit crimes.  But what does controlling for income matter?  As an academic exercise, fine, but when it comes to making the law.  I do not see the practical relevance.  A curfew on black people would still be more effective, and by your logic, acceptable.

[Gustaf]

You on the other hand got no points, but considering that you're a megalomaniac who tries desperately to be special by adopting ridiculous opinions on subjects you know little about, attempts to get you to consider thinking and such probably won't work too well, and I will hence refrain. Making up terms to slap on your opponents isn't really a strong debating technique though, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, there is, once again, links between being a young male and violence that is inherent biologically and pretty obvious. A lot of perfectly normal people get into fist-fights when they're young. YOu can pick almost any crime  and many youths will have either personal experience of it or know someone who has. This is not the case with older people. If a 40-year old says he got in a fight the other day, he's most likely a drug addict, in jail, etc. When it comes to blacks or Hispanics, one would have to isolate the race factor, removing things like poorer education, incomes, etc. I doubt the statistics would be as harsh. Also, crimes committed on the streets, which is what a curfew would aim at, is even more typical of youths.

You're still arguing a point that's not the point that everyone else here is arguing about...

Of course, if you control for income, crimes go down!  But why should you control for income when creating such a law?  What practical relevance does that have?  We're not arguing that youths are more likely to commit crimes.  But what does controlling for income matter?  As an academic exercise, fine, but when it comes to making the law.  I do not see the practical relevance.  A curfew on black people would still be more effective, and by your logic, acceptable.

Now, now...I'm sensing a lot of hostility here, probably based on the assumption that I favour a curfew. I should perhaps clarify that I don't...I just think the arguments that you and Gabu are now advancing aren't very good. The relevant argument, IMO, is the one you suggested earlier, namely that the consequences for innocent people are too harsh while the benefit in crime reduction isn't significant enough.

And as of the matter at hand, the debate is getting kind of ridiculous. You are desperately trying to show that because a person favours special legislation based on age, that person should also favour special legislation based on race. That isn't a very convincing case to make, given that everyone holds the position that it is fair to legislate differently based on age, whereas few people believe that of race.

You may argue that crime is different from voting, driving, drinking, working, etc like Gabu has, but none of you have in my view given any conclusive arguments as to why it is different.

When it comes to you specific points here, this IS, first of all, an academic excercise. Let us go through what was said here. I said youths are more likely to commit crimes. You said blacks are too. I said that was probably not controlled for income. You then replied that this has no relevance for practical policy. I don't really follow why it isn't. If income is a stronger predictor than race, it would be better to restrict poor people than ethnic minorities. It is thus very much relevant. The whole point was that youths are probably the most predominant group, especially when it comes to street violence.

Oh, and in case someone brings it up, my first post on this topic was a) in jest and b) based on misunderstanding the topic. I hadn't read through the discussion and didn't realize what the issue was about exactly.

[Alcon]

Now, now...I'm sensing a lot of hostility here, probably based on the assumption that I favour a curfew. I should perhaps clarify that I don't...I just think the arguments that you and Gabu are now advancing aren't very good. The relevant argument, IMO, is the one you suggested earlier, namely that the consequences for innocent people are too harsh while the benefit in crime reduction isn't significant enough.

I'm really not being hostile just because I use explanation points, and if anything I said implied disrespect, it should not have.

I'm not going to get mad at anyone for disagreeing with me.  That would be really idiotic of me.

And as of the matter at hand, the debate is getting kind of ridiculous. You are desperately trying to show that because a person favours special legislation based on age, that person should also favour special legislation based on race. That isn't a very convincing case to make, given that everyone holds the position that it is fair to legislate differently based on age, whereas few people believe that of race.

I understand that...but you can't control age any more than race, and crime statistics indicate that both race and age are related to an individual's likelihood to commit a crime.  In both cases, there are plenty of innocent people who would be affected.  In this case, what does make age a better basis?

You may argue that crime is different from voting, driving, drinking, working, etc like Gabu has, but none of you have in my view given any conclusive arguments as to why it is different.

I don't see why I need to defend differences from laws that I don't necessarily support in the first place...

To argue devil's advocate, do you consider voting and drinking to be rights analogous to leaving your house?

When it comes to you specific points here, this IS, first of all, an academic excercise. Let us go through what was said here. I said youths are more likely to commit crimes. You said blacks are too. I said that was probably not controlled for income. You then replied that this has no relevance for practical policy. I don't really follow why it isn't. If income is a stronger predictor than race, it would be better to restrict poor people than ethnic minorities. It is thus very much relevant. The whole point was that youths are probably the most predominant group, especially when it comes to street violence.

They aren't the most predominant group - minorities are.  We covered that earlier.  It's very hard to measure income for those who are arrested, unlike sex, age and ethnicity.

But my point is that there is a reason no one is suggesting keeping poorer people in.  They can vote.  And if you think that this wouldn't generate outrage from even middle-class adults, that's ridiculous.

[minionofmidas]

I think most of us has a sense that young people (in particular young men) are pretty aggressive. With most people this decreases with age. I mean, visit any schoolyard where a bunch of young boys aren't being supervised. Most games they come up with will basically be about fighting or testing each other physically. I think there are good reasons to assume that aggressivity is to an extent connected with youth.

I'm in high school and, uh, no.  There is some fighting, but for the most part I see people playing bloody knuckles with quarters (dumb, but not violent).  I do not at all agree that anywhere near the majority of male teenagers are criminally aggressive.

Also, once you exclude "serious" criminals I believe young people tend to dominate crime statistics by a mile. So the link is not in any way weak and that it is causal is under-pinned by biology, I think (has to do with developing the ability to fight for the tribe, for food and whatnot. Kind of like how lion cubs will roll around fighting each other).

And so do minorities and males in general.  No one is arguing against the points you are making - that most criminals are young males, and minorities - commit an unusual number of crimes.

The issue is whether the criminalisation of their being out at night is justifiable, considering that there has been no study that has scientifically proved that it really doesn't that much in reducing crime rates.  Do you not think it is fair that the law-abiding among us demand at least that before the right to be outside for a third to a quarter of the day is taken away from us?

You've got points but consider that Gustaf is a euro nanny state transnational progressive so attempts to get him to consider solutions NOT involving the nanny state probably won't work too well

Especially given that we're discussing a nanny state proposal that has never been seriously proposed in any European nanny state (although Sweden, like the US, has laws against drinking in public) but that does exist in parts of the oh-so-libertarian US.

Give me a break.

[Gustaf]

Now, now...I'm sensing a lot of hostility here, probably based on the assumption that I favour a curfew. I should perhaps clarify that I don't...I just think the arguments that you and Gabu are now advancing aren't very good. The relevant argument, IMO, is the one you suggested earlier, namely that the consequences for innocent people are too harsh while the benefit in crime reduction isn't significant enough.

I'm really not being hostile just because I use explanation points, and if anything I said implied disrespect, it should not have.

I'm not going to get mad at anyone for disagreeing with me.  That would be really idiotic of me.

I wasn't offended, I just had the feeling that you and Gabu were considering me an anti-teenage monster. I felt a need to clear things up.

And as of the matter at hand, the debate is getting kind of ridiculous. You are desperately trying to show that because a person favours special legislation based on age, that person should also favour special legislation based on race. That isn't a very convincing case to make, given that everyone holds the position that it is fair to legislate differently based on age, whereas few people believe that of race.

I understand that...but you can't control age any more than race, and crime statistics indicate that both race and age are related to an individual's likelihood to commit a crime.  In both cases, there are plenty of innocent people who would be affected.  In this case, what does make age a better basis?

There is a theoretical argument which is credible. It makes sense that teens would be more likely to commit crimes which means that the causal inference is real in that case. Few people on the other hand belive that there is anything inherent in skin colour that increases the likelihood to commit a crime.

You may argue that crime is different from voting, driving, drinking, working, etc like Gabu has, but none of you have in my view given any conclusive arguments as to why it is different.

I don't see why I need to defend differences from laws that I don't necessarily support in the first place...

To argue devil's advocate, do you consider voting and drinking to be rights analogous to leaving your house?

But are you seriously refuting restrictions such as the voting age or the drinking age? Not the particular ages today of course, but the notion of having it at all?

Well, voting is a pretty basic right. But, no, not really. THAT is what I would consider a good argument against teen curfews.

When it comes to you specific points here, this IS, first of all, an academic excercise. Let us go through what was said here. I said youths are more likely to commit crimes. You said blacks are too. I said that was probably not controlled for income. You then replied that this has no relevance for practical policy. I don't really follow why it isn't. If income is a stronger predictor than race, it would be better to restrict poor people than ethnic minorities. It is thus very much relevant. The whole point was that youths are probably the most predominant group, especially when it comes to street violence.

They aren't the most predominant group - minorities are.  We covered that earlier.  It's very hard to measure income for those who are arrested, unlike sex, age and ethnicity.

But my point is that there is a reason no one is suggesting keeping poorer people in.  They can vote.  And if you think that this wouldn't generate outrage from even middle-class adults, that's ridiculous.

[/quote]

How sure are you of these statistics? First off, youths are more of a cross-section of society than an ethnic minority, as regards income, etc making a correlation there much more solid as proof of criminal tendencies. Secondly, we should not look at crime in general, but at street crimes in particular. I'm pretty certain that youths dominate these kind of crimes, but I don't know the American statistics on the matter.

As for your last point - of course. You sacrifice the rights of people unable to protest effectively, that's a basic rule in politics. I don't think it's the sole reason, but politically it would be very hard to justifie a curfew for voters.

[Alcon]

Gustaf, please forgive me but I'm rather violently ill today.  I'm going to have to wait for a while to give you a cogent response.  Just posting this as a reminder to myself.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, please forgive me but I'm rather violently ill today.  I'm going to have to wait for a while to give you a cogent response.  Just posting this as a reminder to myself.

That is perfectly fine, of course. We've reached a stage where we're both mostly just repeating the same lines over and over again, so I'm not too upset.

[Alcon]

Thanks.  Nasty case of food poisoning.  The only good thing about it is that you feel perfectly fine the next morning.

I wasn't offended, I just had the feeling that you and Gabu were considering me an anti-teenage monster. I felt a need to clear things up.

Haha, all right - I don't consider you an "anti-teenage monster." 

And as of the matter at hand, the debate is getting kind of ridiculous. You are desperately trying to show that because a person favours special legislation based on age, that person should also favour special legislation based on race.

Desperately?    I didn't realize that my posts were any more "desperate" than those in any other debate.

Actually, what I was trying to do was to show that there are two things that someone cannot control (age and race) that both correlate with higher rates of violent crime, and that from a practical sense, race would be an even better way of preventing crime.

There is a theoretical argument which is credible. It makes sense that teens would be more likely to commit crimes which means that the causal inference is real in that case. Few people on the other hand belive that there is anything inherent in skin colour that increases the likelihood to commit a crime.

Why is that relevant?  Fine, in that case, keep the poor inside.  It's unenforcable, but as a theoretical.  Why not?  Why is no one suggesting that?  They can vote, among other things.

Well, voting is a pretty basic right. But, no, not really. THAT is what I would consider a good argument against teen curfews.

That and research indicates that they don't really do much for crime rates anyway, from what I've read. 

How sure are you of these statistics? First off, youths are more of a cross-section of society than an ethnic minority, as regards income, etc making a correlation there much more solid as proof of criminal tendencies. Secondly, we should not look at crime in general, but at street crimes in particular. I'm pretty certain that youths dominate these kind of crimes, but I don't know the American statistics on the matter.

Minorities dominate all crime in any statistic I've seen.  If not street crime, what else would they be dominating...?  Street crimes consist of a high portion of crimes, and it's hard to imagine that minorities rank so much higher on forgery, or something.

We have very concrete statistics on these because arrest records list age, sex and race.

[Gustaf]

Thanks.  Nasty case of food poisoning.  The only good thing about it is that you feel perfectly fine the next morning.

I wasn't offended, I just had the feeling that you and Gabu were considering me an anti-teenage monster. I felt a need to clear things up.

Haha, all right - I don't consider you an "anti-teenage monster." 

And as of the matter at hand, the debate is getting kind of ridiculous. You are desperately trying to show that because a person favours special legislation based on age, that person should also favour special legislation based on race.

Desperately?    I didn't realize that my posts were any more "desperate" than those in any other debate.

Actually, what I was trying to do was to show that there are two things that someone cannot control (age and race) that both correlate with higher rates of violent crime, and that from a practical sense, race would be an even better way of preventing crime.

There is a theoretical argument which is credible. It makes sense that teens would be more likely to commit crimes which means that the causal inference is real in that case. Few people on the other hand belive that there is anything inherent in skin colour that increases the likelihood to commit a crime.

Why is that relevant?  Fine, in that case, keep the poor inside.  It's unenforcable, but as a theoretical.  Why not?  Why is no one suggesting that?  They can vote, among other things.

Well, voting is a pretty basic right. But, no, not really. THAT is what I would consider a good argument against teen curfews.

That and research indicates that they don't really do much for crime rates anyway, from what I've read. 

How sure are you of these statistics? First off, youths are more of a cross-section of society than an ethnic minority, as regards income, etc making a correlation there much more solid as proof of criminal tendencies. Secondly, we should not look at crime in general, but at street crimes in particular. I'm pretty certain that youths dominate these kind of crimes, but I don't know the American statistics on the matter.

Minorities dominate all crime in any statistic I've seen.  If not street crime, what else would they be dominating...?  Street crimes consist of a high portion of crimes, and it's hard to imagine that minorities rank so much higher on forgery, or something.

We have very concrete statistics on these because arrest records list age, sex and race.

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

[minionofmidas]

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

Alright. I'm being lazy and don't want to read the whole discussion.

I agree with every word you say up there (except for the part "is not a normal person, but probably a criminal". Too black-and-white to be of much worth in a real life situation, not to mention that "criminals" are more or less normal people.) but how does it relate to teen curfews?

[Gustaf]

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

Alright. I'm being lazy and don't want to read the whole discussion.

I agree with every word you say up there (except for the part "is not a normal person, but probably a criminal". Too black-and-white to be of much worth in a real life situation, not to mention that "criminals" are more or less normal people.) but how does it relate to teen curfews?

Well, that was obviously an exaggeration which I will not stand up for.

As for you question, it doesn't really. My point is that it is reasonable to support a teen curfew but not a black curfew, or whatever, because the groups are fundamentally different in this aspect. So this isn't really a question about teen curfews anymore, because we both oppose them. I just took issue with one of the arguments used against them, which I don't think holds up.

[Alcon]

Fundamentally different in what aspect?  They grow up to no longer be that age?  And what difference does that make?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I still really don't get what you're trying to say.

It seems that your argument is irrelevant to race...you could just have a curfew for blacks under x age. 

[ilikeverin]

Fundamentally different in what aspect?  They grow up to no longer be that age?  And what difference does that make?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I still really don't get what you're trying to say.

Did you read my post earlier in this thread or is neuroscience not important to you?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm new to the debate and haven't read all 11 pages.. sorry.

I think teen curfews for teens under 16 is reasonable if it's say 11pm or something.  If the teens are accompanied by parents or someone over 21, then it wouldn't be so bad. 

I don't think I was ever walking around town at age 15 with other friends and causing trouble.

[Alcon]

Fundamentally different in what aspect?  They grow up to no longer be that age?  And what difference does that make?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I still really don't get what you're trying to say.

Did you read my post earlier in this thread or is neuroscience not important to you?

I don't see how more teens being inclined toward violence than adults is an answer to my question... 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't wanna read all the pages but I had a curfew - a parental imposed one.  The fact I am alive today means I followed it without exception.

Government as parent once again - OPPOSED.

[Bono]

I don't wanna read all the pages but I had a curfew - a parental imposed one.  The fact I am alive today means I followed it without exception.

Government as parent once again - OPPOSED.

Your parents would have killed you if you didn't obey it?

[Gustaf]

Fundamentally different in what aspect?  They grow up to no longer be that age?  And what difference does that make?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I still really don't get what you're trying to say.

It seems that your argument is irrelevant to race...you could just have a curfew for blacks under x age. 

Ok, let me put it like this. In an ideal world, I don't think there would be any difference in crime rates between blacks and whites, because I don't think skin colour actually inclines you toward crimes. I don't know if you want to contest this, but I don't expect it. However, regardless of what we did with society there would still be higher crime rates for youths than for adults. That makes a difference.

[Alcon]

Ok, let me put it like this. In an ideal world, I don't think there would be any difference in crime rates between blacks and whites, because I don't think skin colour actually inclines you toward crimes. I don't know if you want to contest this, but I don't expect it. However, regardless of what we did with society there would still be higher crime rates for youths than for adults. That makes a difference.

I don't dispute that, which is why I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, and what it has to do with practicalities of teen curfews...

Since this isn't a perfect world, and everything.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We could quickly remove the gangsta subculture by shooting/interning/deporting a couple million people and putting in place repressive measures. Only a few million would  be potential resistance and the rest would just keep their heads down and mutter over coffee.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't wanna read all the pages but I had a curfew - a parental imposed one.  The fact I am alive today means I followed it without exception.

Government as parent once again - OPPOSED.

Your parents would have killed you if you didn't obey it?

I never wanted to find out   My dad is a tough ole Marine.

[minionofmidas]

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

Alright. I'm being lazy and don't want to read the whole discussion.

I agree with every word you say up there (except for the part "is not a normal person, but probably a criminal". Too black-and-white to be of much worth in a real life situation, not to mention that "criminals" are more or less normal people.) but how does it relate to teen curfews?

Well, that was obviously an exaggeration which I will not stand up for.

As for you question, it doesn't really. My point is that it is reasonable to support a teen curfew but not a black curfew, or whatever, because the groups are fundamentally different in this aspect.

Change that to "not quite as immediately obviously unreasonable", and I'm ready to agree with you. It's not reasonable because it's not solving anything, and is unenforceable - something which the fact that your point is true simply doesn't affect.

[TomC]

Haha! My students are writing in class essays on teen curfews. Ninety percent of the essays are against.