MN Faces Idea Of Lower Drinking Age, Again

[Gunny]

Then your nonsense up there was absolutely pointless.

No, I made a perfectly valid point. A much more valid argument than you, as a matter of fact.

The fact that you don't like being called a child when that is what you are is YOUR problem, not mine.

 

[KittenKoder]

Agna: No, Gunny's reasoning is more sound in this matter.

 

[KittenKoder]

It should really be the parents of minors to decide what age they drink, but once you turn 18 you get a LOT of responsibility, and the reward is suppose to be the right to make your own mistakes. Before then it should be completely up to the parents, but that will require modern parents to start taking responsibility for raising their kids more.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I supposed to read all your convoluted reasoning? You know, all of those bullshit arguments you make that try to claim children are the equal of adults?

You'll have to specify your definition of "children" if you expect a response to that. I have noted that the age group currently known as "adolescents" are likely inhibited by the artificial extension of childhood implemented after the Industrial Revolution, yes. I have noted that this group likely possesses the capacity to make rational and informed decisions in the same manner as older people. This is an analysis supported by figures as wide-ranging as the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. More than that, I have expressed support for the abolition of age restrictions, not because I believe that infants will be voting, for instance, but because there's simply no specific line in the sand that can be anything other than arbitrary, and youth will assert their own competence by virtue of the fact that competence parallels with possessing the means to get what you want.

You aren't. YOUR emotional immaturity, lack of wisdom and experience, and an ability to be honest when it comes to your arguments easily offsets any data you may have to offer. As I have told you in the past, intellect is but ONE ingredient to being a person.

Regardless of your tantrum, you have yet to make a valid comment in this post. Despite the fact that you're apparently irked by the existence of advocacy of lowered or abolished age restrictions, those arguments define an entire civil rights movement supported by respected scholars, commentators, and ordinary activists. The movement behind this advocacy has received increased media exposure as of late, including several recent national television appearances. Hence, despite your apparent aggravation, you and similarly irrational people simply don't have the ability to halt a grassroots movement in its tracks. I'm always willing to speak to those willing to listen, but at some point, the irrational will simply be ignored.

I don't agree with the 21 years old age limit, but not because I support any of YOUR nonsense. I simply know from experience and observation that there are 18 years olds who are responsible drinkers just as there are 55 years olds who are irresponsible drinkers.

Yes, that's quite obviously true. And my observation has been that societies that introduce moderate alcohol consumption to persons in mid childhood (by my definition), tend not to suffer from the high binge drinking rates of the prohibitionist United States. Which facet of this reasoning is unsound?

If you're old enough to kill and die for your country at 18, and vote for whatever moron you prefer as President, you should certainly be considered an adult in all aspects. Or none.

I think the double-standard is bullshit, and I'm glad the drinking age WAS 18 when I was 18.

Yes, that's quite a common argument. I don't rely on it inasmuch as I don't support an age of majority, but it's a valuable rallying point.

No, I made a perfectly valid point. A much more valid argument than you, as a matter of fact.

The fact that you don't like being called a child when that is what you are is YOUR problem, not mine.

Evidently, based on your own standards, you are the "child" here since you haven't offered comment based on empirical evidence, despite your claims of having made "valid argument."

Agna: No, Gunny's reasoning is more sound in this matter.

That's not the case.

 

[KittenKoder]

Agna ... you have not proven otherwise.

 

[Agnapostate]

His claims are based on reliance on irrational dogma instead of empirical evidence. Much like the arguments of the "free marketers."

 

[Zoom-boing]

His claims are based on reliance on irrational dogma instead of empirical evidence. Much like the arguments of the "free marketers."

You claim that Gunny's argument is based on 'reliance on irrational dogma'. Not it's not. His argument is based on the wisdom and knowledge he has gained throughout his life. You claim that Gunny did not provide 'empirical evidence' in his argument. Quite the contrary, what he provided was only empirical evidence.

empirical
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

empirical - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Gunny's evidence is that by his observation and experience there are 18 year olds who are responsible drinkers and 55 year olds who are irresponsible drinkers.

Empirical evidence is evidence based in observation and experience, not evidence based on studies, statistics and the like (which is what you use to present your arguments).

You seem to be very dismissive of other's knowledge that is gained via observation and life experience. How much life experience do you bring to any discussion?