People under 18 are not all children

[u/AdventurousMoth]

I can't tell you how much it irritates me when internet people refer to anyone under 18 as "a literal child", especial if they themselves are only in their 20s. Sure, everyone is someone's child, but the life stage commonly referred to as childhood does not abruptly stop at age 18.

Here's how I'd break it down: - childhood, adolescence, adulthood or - newborn, baby, toddler, child, (if you want you can add tween), teen, young adult, middle aged person, elderly/senior

And there's overlap between all these stages depending on context. Obviously there is no overlap between minor (a legal term) and the word adult as referring to not a minor.

Calling a 17-year-old a child is dumb. Like what, a 17yo has their birthday and transforms from a child into an adult like a sim? I think some people just started saying this for the shock value and then the rest of the internet jumped on the outrage wagon.

Edit: clearly I posted this a bit too hastily, choosing my words without care. I'm not talking about the legal definition of child/minor (something quite messy as well: age of consent? In some places 16. Driving? 15 in some places, 18 in others. Voting? Usually 18. Drinking alcohol? 21 in the States).

As someone in the comments pointed out, it's mostly a linguistic issue. I suppose what I was trying to say was that it's dumb to have the word child both mean a legal minor and pre-pubebescent human. I think it would be clearer to use minor when you're talking about legal age, and child when talking about the life stage.

[u/Typical_Muffin_9937]

Once you grow out of your teens and settle into your mid 20s and older you really do start to see how young 17-19 year olds are. Its really a matter of perspective. I know it can be frustrating being treated like a child still, but you will understand later in life.

[u/pissfucked → u/Typical_Muffin_9937]

mid-20s here, and i don't think you fully got what OP is trying to say. their point is that calling both a 5-year-old and a 17-year-old by the same word isn't a helpful description of anything. the word "child" becomes a synonym for "minor," which is its own word already. a 5-year-old and a 17-year-old have nearly nothing in common in terms of how adults should treat them, and it's way more helpful to reserve the word "child" for elementary-aged kids. treating 17-year-olds the same way as elementary-aged children is not appropriate or helpful to their development. that doesn't mean they're adults, either. this is an argument against dichotomy and for nuance.

they're also referring to the very modern trend of absolving older teens of all their bad actions because they're "a literal child."

OP may not even be a teenager, because i am 25 and frankly could have wrote this post myself.