Drinking age

charver said:
You deserve it mate.

And remember, you can never be too good at drinking so make sure you practice frequently.
Click to expand...

I practice about as frequently as an good Irshman would. And of course I have the traditonal Irish mist on the way to me as well.
 
Warren said:
Reading this thread has convinced me that Cypress would argue in support of more regulation for absolutely anything.
Click to expand...


Well, you must not have read much of the thread. Because a well known Libertarian poster agreed with my interpretation of drinking laws, and in addition, the consensus legal and court opinions, are the same as mine.
 
Battleborne said:
at nineteen I was old enough to kick ass,drink beer,vote and fight for my country....WWII ring a bell..nothing changes except politics...you joined at seventeen or so ya said..what was your experience based on reality?
Click to expand...

You were in WW2 !!! wow you are old.
 
Cypress said:
Well, you must not have read much of the thread. Because a well known Libertarian poster agreed with my interpretation of drinking laws, and in addition, the consensus legal and court opinions, are the same as mine.
Click to expand...

You justified your point extremely well. That was not what I was saying.

I would even say that you probably won the argument. Court opinions have held that it is not age discrimination. You are absolutely right about that.

But it is. I don't really drink so I don't care, but it is unfair.
 
Damocles said:
This is not a non-sequitor, you must not know what that means if you think an argument about personal responsibility as opposed to a larger responsibility doesn't belong in a thread about personal responsibility as opposed to larger responsibility.

You used to be very smart before you started emoting all over the board and assuming my opinion rather than reading my posts. Calling something "non-sequitor" all the time is not an argument, unless you are in training to become Stockdale Jr.
Click to expand...

And that was a strawman. Congratulations.
 
Damocles said:
That is fine, but if they are not ready to be treated like adults would be treated then they are not ready for the responsibility of adults. First you gain responsibility for yourself, then for others.
Click to expand...

So you have to join the military before you can vote? Great argument.
 
Damocles said:
No, You must know that I do not advocate a change, other than to allow active duty military all the rights and benefits of adults, and that I am asking a question, not expressing my own opinion.

If you believe that they are too stupid to make decisions for their own lives why would you want them making decisions for yours?

Same person:
Too stupid to join the military...

Should choose who leads the military...

The two do not equate.
Click to expand...

1. No one said they were "stupid".

2. They wouldn't be choosing who leads the military. They would cast one vote out of 50 million for one of two options. It's not really democracy, it's a facade of democracy, and it's a joke to call yourself powerful because of it.

3. The things required to fight in the military and the things required to vote are completely different. You can't lump one into "larger responsibility" and the other into "smaller responsiblity". That's exactly where libertarians go wrong, believing that there's some universally consistent approach to everything whenever there isn't in reality.


You don't believe that the voting age should be raised to 21, Damo. I don't know why you're making such an argument other than to be an ass.
 
Watermark said:
And that was a strawman. Congratulations.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? It was an example of the exact argument you used with me. You clearly have no idea how to apply logical fallacies correctly. So far you have mislabeled two of them.
 
Watermark said:
1. No one said they were "stupid".
Click to expand...

No, they didn't use those exact words. However, they did say that they were too unprepared to make such life choices for themselves.

2. They wouldn't be choosing who leads the military. They would cast one vote out of 50 million for one of two options. It's not really democracy, it's a facade of democracy, and it's a joke to call yourself powerful because of it.
Click to expand...

However, they would be suddenly prepared to make a correct selection, to choose who should lead what they are too unprepared to be part of. This is preposterous.

3. The things required to fight in the military and the things required to vote are completely different. You can't lump one into "larger responsibility" and the other into "smaller responsiblity". That's exactly where libertarians go wrong, believing that there's some universally consistent approach to everything whenever there isn't in reality.
Click to expand...

However, I can suggest that if they are unprepared to make choices for themselves they are wholly unprepared to make choices for others, such as who will lead those they cannot be part of because they are 'unprepared' for such.

You don't believe that the voting age should be raised to 21, Damo. I don't know why you're making such an argument other than to be an ass.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe that the voting age should be raised, I also don't believe that the age to join the military should be raised. I am pointing out the fallacies in their argument. They are totally unprepared to make long-term choices for their own lives yet are supposed to be able to make choices for mine? I don't think so.

Those making this argument are attempting to have it both ways. They are either unprepared to make choices for themselves and their own lives and thus unprepared to take part in making decisions for others, or since they are prepared to make long-term decisions concerning others they are also prepared to make them for themselves.

I suggest that they are both. Considering I put myself into that same decision making process at that age, and all the friends that I was in with also did, I'm reasonably sure they were well aware of the implications of their service.
 
I've misidentified two?

Damo, what you're saying is that the decision to join the military is exactly equatable to how prepared you are to vote. Which is non-sequitor. Joining the military isn't voting and that's that; they are two different processes in entirety.
 
Watermark said:
I've misidentified two?

Damo, what you're saying is that the decision to join the military is exactly equatable to how prepared you are to vote. Which is non-sequitor. Joining the military isn't voting and that's that; they are two different processes in entirety.
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that making choices for your own life precedes being given the authority and ability to make choices for others.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
I'm gonna drink too. Hell my dad is buying my first beer back in the states in less than a week and I can go to just about any bar back home and get served without I.D. (friends of the family).
Click to expand...

I agree with all those that posted similar, you deserve any and all drinks. With that said, take care, and Thank you again.
 
Watermark said:
It would seriously cripple our military, Darla. There's no way we could fight a serious war with only people above 21. Honestly, that's really a lot more important than the drinking age.
Click to expand...

w

the average age for us of a soldiers for wwii was 25
 
bullshit, lower the drinking age. Young men have been dying for this country for decades below the age of 21. Lots of adults die in drinking accidents as well and we still allow it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top