[Ktoyou]

I think not revealing ones age is sneaky. Why should we not know how old a member is, that we may choose to respond accordingly, or not respond to minors?

I know it is hard to validate a persons age; however, I think most persons who say they are over 30, probably are, as most young people who are minors would be inclined to say they were 21 or close to that age.

It would be nice if member profiles stated they were minors. I see a potential problem when speaking of theology with minors, since they are their parents’ wards; one might end up with an angry parent, if you express a religious opinion that is contrary to the parents teaching. It is up to each member how to deal with this; I prefer to not communicate with minors. I am not their parent and I would not like my kids told things I did not think right when they were young.

We have one member who sated on the forum he was 12 years old, that violates the age minimum, as far as I remember.

I think the minimum age should be raised; 13-year-olds need to learn from their parents, not strangers. It might be different for 16-year-olds, yet I would rather see the age minimum set at 18.

This in my opinion on age for membership, but I am not an administrator here, just a member with an opinion.

[King cobra]

I am over thirty.

[csuguy]

I'm 20.

[Redfin]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I think not revealing ones age is sneaky. Why should we not know how old a member is, that we may choose to respond accordingly, or not respond to minors?

While there are some individuals here to whom I would have responded differently in the past had I known their ages at the time, I still think that in a forum such as this, which is, after all, primarily a marketplace of ideas, there results a certain egalitarianism in not having age as a factor that is more beneficial than harmful.

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I know it is hard to validate a persons age; however, I think most persons who say they are over 30, probably are, as most young people who are minors would be inclined to say they were 21 or close to that age.

It would be nice if member profiles stated they were minors. I see a potential problem when speaking of theology with minors, since they are their parents’ wards; one might end up with an angry parent, if you express a religious opinion that is contrary to the parents teaching. It is up to each member how to deal with this; I prefer to not communicate with minors. I am not their parent and I would not like my kids told things I did not think right when they were young.

We have one member who sated on the forum he was 12 years old, that violates the age minimum, as far as I remember.

I think the minimum age should be raised; 13-year-olds need to learn from their parents, not strangers. It might be different for 16-year-olds, yet I would rather see the age minimum set at 18.

This in my opinion on age for membership, but I am not an administrator here, just a member with an opinion.

As with all internet usage, this issue is something that should be controlled and monitored by the minors' parents or guardians.

It should not be the rationale for the imposition of more rules and/or restrictions upon TOL or its members.

Just another opinion...

[Ktoyou]

I agree in principle. The problem is minors here might be violating their parents’ intentions and if I speak my belief to a minor, then it is possible that trouble might occur. I think at least, we should be able to look at the age of those we respond to, then we have some grounds to rationally assume they are adults. Why not have a rule that age is posted? Then we have a clear choice to respond.

parents or guardians often respond after that fact, but take little interest in monitoring the child’s’ internet use

[This Charming Manc]

Well im glad you were not my mom. I learned alot from other adults who were not my parents, which included my christian faith (which my parents now share).

Also my experience as youth worker for 10 years led me to understand that teenagers need people to talk to who are not there parents, and this will happen whetehr we like it or not.

When my daughter was dedicatd it was for 3 reasons

1) To thank god for her.
2) To pray gods blessing onto her life
3) To ask the church to help us to raise her, children are not raised in a vacume but within the context of community.

I do think we nee to be more careful with minors, and perhaps see our role as being sounding boards and getting teenagers to ask the right questions rather than 'truthsmaking' them with our opinions, but i feel a non einteraction policy is actually damaging

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I think not revealing ones age is sneaky. Why should we not know how old a member is, that we may choose to respond accordingly, or not respond to minors?

I know it is hard to validate a persons age; however, I think most persons who say they are over 30, probably are, as most young people who are minors would be inclined to say they were 21 or close to that age.

It would be nice if member profiles stated they were minors. I see a potential problem when speaking of theology with minors, since they are their parents’ wards; one might end up with an angry parent, if you express a religious opinion that is contrary to the parents teaching. It is up to each member how to deal with this; I prefer to not communicate with minors. I am not their parent and I would not like my kids told things I did not think right when they were young.

We have one member who sated on the forum he was 12 years old, that violates the age minimum, as far as I remember.

I think the minimum age should be raised; 13-year-olds need to learn from their parents, not strangers. It might be different for 16-year-olds, yet I would rather see the age minimum set at 18.

This in my opinion on age for membership, but I am not an administrator here, just a member with an opinion.