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

• 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

      • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I got my first job in ‘95 when I was 13. This was in a Toronto suburb at a computer shop and it was awesome although only got $5 an hour and had to stay in the back mostly shrink-wrapping a million cd cases. There was a cute 16 year old older girl at the register that I still remember lol.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I was laying lines blueberry raking at 14, and doing dishes in a restaurant at 16. I wanted money and it certainly taught me how difficult manual labor is without putting me in any real danger. The worst I got was bread cuts. I’d 100% put my daughter in the same situation when she’s older.

        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