Comment on A literal child taking orders in a fast food restaurant in the US

• Still@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  you can work for your parents in many places regardless of age

  source

  • Kadaj21@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I.e. your locally owned mom-and-pop Chinese takeout. I’ve seen the kiddos answer the phones there a couple of times, tho most of the time when picking up food for the wife they’re just playing in a blocked off side area that used to be dining pre-pandemic.

    source
• Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I think many states allow children as young as 12 to work in specific non-dangerous jobs with permission from the parents. A company recently got in trouble when they had like 20 12-15 year olds working in a meat processing plant which definitely did not qualify for the “not dangerous” qualifier.

  source
• PP_BOY_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yeah, I agree it’s fucked up but there’s almost no way that kid’s under 14, which is the youngest age Culver’s will hire at, he’s just a late bloomer probably. I think a lot of people would disagree with calling that age group a “literal child.”

  source

  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    A lot of people wouldn’t call a fourteen-year-old a child? Which people? I don’t know of any.

    Assuming the literal meaning of “literal”, a child is, according to the OED, literally:

    a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

    Can you explain how this human being is not fitting the description above?

    source

    • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I have a 14 year old right now and I’d have zero issues with him getting a job. He’s already been eyeing some places.

      source

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I respect that, but your 14 year old is probably quite unusual in that respect. To his credit, of course! Some kids mature faster. I have a 13 year old and a 16 year old and neither of them would be capable of paid work in my opinion. I love them from the bottom of my heart but they would crumble after a shift at BK

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Getting a job as an indulgence because they are interested is fine. Getting a job because their parents are not capable of giving them a dignified lifestyle is downright disgusting and such kids should be rescued. Often greedy parents mask the latter as the former because they are scum.

        source
    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Can you explain how the pictured human being does not fit the description above?

      R Kelly has entered the chat.

      source
    • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Assuming the literal meaning of “literal”, a child is, according to the OED, literally:

      a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

      I’m not in any way defending child labor in general or Culvers in particular, but factually speaking, a 14-year-old fits between those two definitions (above the age of puberty but below the legal age of majority).

      source

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        So that’s an inclusive “or” in the definition. If EITHER of those criteria are fulfilled, then the definition can be applied. Since the criterion about the age of majority is true then the definition is true.
        So conversely, a person above the age of majority who hasn’t reached puberty yet (medical condition maybe? Just suspend disbelief for the sake of the argument) is still by definition a child.

        source
    • PP_BOY_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      From my reply to the other comment:

      Fourteen

      I don’t think most people would disagree that “teenager” is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don’t need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.

      source

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It is blatantly the opposite of accurate. When teenager describes both a thirteen year old who hasn’t hit puberty and a nineteen year old who could fight and die for their country, it’s obviously not an accurate enough term

        source
    • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Those people might say, back in my days I fought wars even though we know better.

      source
    • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Could be a Shawna Rae thing

      source
  • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    14 and a bit is literally a child

    source

    • PP_BOY_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Fourteen.

      I don’t think most people would disagree that “teenager” is a more accurate word to describe that age. Trust me, there is plenty fucked up with the OP picture, we don’t need to resort to hyperbolic language to get our point across.

      source

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Its not hyperbolic, 14 is a teenage child. Teenager is not more accurate, because when you say a ‘teenage worker’ most would assume they were at least in the usually accepted ‘young adult’ range, 16-19, the image here is of a child worker. If they were 17 or 16 that might be different, though still literally, legally a child.

        source
  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I agree with you and Priests and Republicans that 14 isn’t a Child. 😉

    source
  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You’re getting a lot of down votes, but you’re spot on. I started working fast food at 14, and I looked like I was 9.

    source