Full text

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 1 year ago (16 children)

The comment is not out of place. In many jurisdictions, a "child" is under 14, while 14-18 is a "young adult" or "adolescent"

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 90 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You might not be familiar with it but "people under 18" is a long standing propaganda trope.

    What Reuters could have said is "Children, defined as people under 18". But they hit the "people under 18" keyphrase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    There needs to be a clear legal standard, and 18 Years is the arbitrary line we agreed on.
    When a 17 Year old go to war, they are child soldiers, and when they get bombed/starve, they count towards the children death toll.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I think the UN also counts anyone under 35 as "youth" as well. So there's a lot of statistics-related terminology to deal with here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No? Like fucking take the effort to verify you’re claims my dude

    https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth

    “There is no universally agreed international definition of the youth age group. For statistical purposes, however, the United Nations—without prejudice to any other definitions made by Member States—defines ‘youth’ as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years. This definition, which arose in the context of preparations for the International Youth Year (1985) (see A/36/215), was endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 36/28 of 1981. All UN statistics on youth are based on this definition, as is reflected in the annual yearbooks of statistics published by the UN system on demography, education, employment and health.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The claim was based on me attending "national youth day" activities with a bunch of guys that seemed way too old, and wondering why, then the same day the radio told me included people to to age 35, "according to the UN." So the data point stuck like that.

    Which makes sense as this was a southern African nation that likely took their definition from South Africa. Which uses the age of 35.

    https://1library.net/article/definitions-of-ys-of-youth-the-concept-of-youth.qop452mz

    And the UN does recognize variance in the definition of "youth" in local contexts.

    So either we're both wrong, or both right. You pick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, it would feel weird calling a 17 year old a child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments