Rethink Drinking Age, Many University Presidents Say

[Spider-Bite]

I really don't see how anyone that argues that a guy can't drink at 18 can think it's ok for that 18 year old to go to war or be in the service at all. "Killing a man with your bare hands....you're ready for that, but this mich ultra is just a little too much for you".

The day you're an adult you should be able to make adult decisions. If people aren't emotionally capable of having a drink at 18 than how can they serve in the military or be convicted as an adult for crimes? If a bud is too much for you then maybe we need to raise the age for voting, crimes, smoking and living unsupervised to 21 across the board.

And the only true stereotype I've witnessed to be right is "people on internet message boards are *******s".

It's called sacrifice for your country. Nobody should have to serve. The world would be a a better place if no country ever needed a military. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and these things are necessary.

That is why it's called a sacrifice. Not because we believe it's good for a person to shoot somebody, or great for their development to have PTS, but because it beats the alternative of not having a military and getting walked on by the rest of the world. If we thought it was good for them, we wouldn't call it a sacrifice.

If people are going to argue this, they need to show something that society has to gain by lowering the drinking age.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The states do determine their drinking ages. They're dissuaded by the Federal government from allowing an age below 21 because they'll lose 10% of their Federal highway budget if they do.

jag

I personally disagree with the federal government doing things like that. If they want to make it a federal law you have to be 21, great, but if your going to leave it up to the states, than leave it up to the states.

 

[SuBe]

If people are going to argue this, they need to show something that society has to gain by lowering the drinking age.

Liberty? That's a pretty good reason.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Liberty? That's a pretty good reason.

yes, however it's outweighed heavily by all the negatives. LIberty doesn't always trump everything, or we'd have practically no laws at all. One could argue that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, go to school, or drive the speed limit, in the name of freedom and liberty.

Liberty alone isn't reason enough. Supporters of this need to provide more.

 

[The Senator]

yes, however it's outweighed heavily by all the negatives. LIberty doesn't always trump everything, or we'd have practically no laws at all. One could argue that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, go to school, or drive the speed limit, in the name of freedom and liberty.

Liberty alone isn't reason enough. Supporters of this need to provide more.

No, they don't need to provide you with anything else.

The only thing which needs to be provided is common sense, and common sense should tell you that not everyone is going to end up a rambunctious alcoholic if the drinking age is lowered three years. Not everyone is going to have access to alcohol. Your arguments are incredibly flawed in the fact that you think so many kids are going to have access to alcohol in their early teens, but I'm willing to bet that those who want to drink at that age are already drinking. They steal alcohol from their parents, their parents buy alcohol for them, they have much older friends who know other friends who can score something for them... all this happens just about everywhere.

Keep the drinking age where it is, and younger kids will still continue to drink. Lower the drinking age, and those same kids will drink. Those who don't want to drink will continue to not want to drink. There is no way you can statistically prove that, if alcohol was readily available, everyone under the age or at the age of eighteen will drink.

You essentially want to punish people for things they haven't done. For things which other people do. That's a denial of liberty right there, and using the government to encourage responsibility while assuming that we ourselves cannot be responsible. You want the government to babysit us, fine, but I think it's ridiculous to punish people who can act responsibly because others cannot.

 

[The Senator]

It's called sacrifice for your country. Nobody should have to serve. The world would be a a better place if no country ever needed a military. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and these things are necessary.

That is why it's called a sacrifice. Not because we believe it's good for a person to shoot somebody, or great for their development to have PTS, but because it beats the alternative of not having a military and getting walked on by the rest of the world. If we thought it was good for them, we wouldn't call it a sacrifice.

If people are going to argue this, they need to show something that society has to gain by lowering the drinking age.

So I take it you're in favor of the draft?

 

[SuBe]

No, they don't need to provide you with anything else.

The only thing which needs to be provided is common sense, and common sense should tell you that not everyone is going to end up a rambunctious alcoholic if the drinking age is lowered three years. Not everyone is going to have access to alcohol. Your arguments are incredibly flawed in the fact that you think so many kids are going to have access to alcohol in their early teens, but I'm willing to bet that those who want to drink at that age are already drinking. They steal alcohol from their parents, their parents buy alcohol for them, they have much older friends who know other friends who can score something for them... all this happens just about everywhere.

Keep the drinking age where it is, and younger kids will still continue to drink. Lower the drinking age, and those same kids will drink. Those who don't want to drink will continue to not want to drink. There is no way you can statistically prove that, if alcohol was readily available, everyone under the age or at the age of eighteen will drink.

You essentially want to punish people for things they haven't done. For things which other people do. That's a denial of liberty right there, and using the government to encourage responsibility while assuming that we ourselves cannot be responsible. You want the government to babysit us, fine, but I think it's ridiculous to punish people who can act responsibly because others cannot.

There would be a way, look at all the other countries that have lower drinking ages.

But, Spider-Bite doesn't know what liberty is aparently.

 

[The Senator]

There would be a way, look at all the other countries that have lower drinking ages.

But, Spider-Bite doesn't know what liberty is aparently.

No, since he thinks everyone who drinks is a redneck *******, and since they don't have redneck *******s in Finland or Germany, there's no way studies from those countries would be comparable to the United States.

 

[terry78]

IF they did lower it to 18, do you honestly think it would curb binge drinking and craziness? Just from what you know about our culture over here, do you think it would seriously help, or is this just lip service so 18 year olds can go into the store to buy their **** instead of having older dudes do it?

 

[Spider-Bite]

So I take it you're in favor of the draft?

I favor voluntary service. what exactly in that post led you to believe I favor a draft?

And name one pro-draft statment in that post. I seriously want an answer and an explanation.

 

[Spider-Bite]

No, they don't need to provide you with anything else.

If they want a strong argument than yes they do. Just saying "liberty" and claiming that's an argument is ridiculous.

The only thing which needs to be provided is common sense,

as well as information, critical thought, analyzation, research, numbers, and stats, which I provided and backs up my position.

and common sense should tell you that not everyone is going to end up a rambunctious alcoholic if the drinking age is lowered three years.

it does tell me that. However it does not tell me that nobody will.

Not everyone is going to have access to alcohol. Your arguments are incredibly flawed in the fact that you think so many kids are going to have access to alcohol in their early teens, but I'm willing to bet that those who want to drink at that age are already drinking. They steal alcohol from their parents, their parents buy alcohol for them, they have much older friends who know other friends who can score something for them... all this happens just about everywhere.

Keep the drinking age where it is, and younger kids will still continue to drink. Lower the drinking age, and those same kids will drink. Those who don't want to drink will continue to not want to drink. There is no way you can statistically prove that, if alcohol was readily available, everyone under the age or at the age of eighteen will drink.

You essentially want to punish people for things they haven't done. For things which other people do. That's a denial of liberty right there, and using the government to encourage responsibility while assuming that we ourselves cannot be responsible. You want the government to babysit us, fine, but I think it's ridiculous to punish people who can act responsibly because others cannot.

Your just repeating the same argument and you are yet to provide how this will benefit society. I never said everybody will drink. I said the youth will drink more than they are now. that is common sense. If you lower the drinking age, people at a younger age will drink more. I mean come on. It's not rocket science.

anyways I provided stats showing the negative effects on a person's life that alcohol has while consumed at a young age. Based on that I say the very obvious choice would be to try and make alcohol less accessible to children, instead of more accessible. I mean if the alocohol is causing harm, than shouldn't we be trying to stop them from drinking?

I know you will respond to that with "not everybody will be an alcoholic" but that's not the point. The point is that a lot of the time it will be harmful to a person's life. And increased access for people that are 16 or 17, is not a good thing. These people are too young to make those kinds of choices, and even if you disagree with that, there is no point in arguing, because in a few years you'll agree anyways, or you'll at least agree when you have kids of your own that age.

but I wish you would stop using words like "everyone" or "always" claiming that I'm using those words, because I'm not, and you know I'm not.

 

[The Senator]

I favor voluntary service. what exactly in that post led you to believe I favor a draft?

And name one pro-draft statment in that post. I seriously want an answer and an explanation.

Oh, I was simply wondering if you were for the draft. Because I would have had a nice argument to follow, if you were.

 

[Spider-Bite]

No, since he thinks everyone who drinks is a redneck *******, and since they don't have redneck *******s in Finland or Germany, there's no way studies from those countries would be comparable to the United States.

Dude I drink. And I don't have a drinking problem. I'm not a redneck or a drunk.

I think it's time you post a link to a post of mine, where I said the things you think I said.

It's time, because your always claiming that I'm the dishonest one, who doesn't back up his claims. I wanna see these posts Jman. I love to debate, and I'll happilly debate you, but if your going to make false claims about me, I'm gonna call you out on em.

so I'm claiming that your not telling the truth here, which means either your not, or I'm not. Post a link and prove your not.

 

[The Senator]

Dude I drink. And I don't have a drinking problem. I'm not a redneck or a drunk.

I think it's time you post a link to a post of mine, where I said the things you think I said.

It's time, because your always claiming that I'm the dishonest one, who doesn't back up his claims. I wanna see these posts Jman. I love to debate, and I'll happilly debate you, but if your going to make false claims about me, I'm gonna call you out on em.

so I'm claiming that your not telling the truth here, which means either your not, or I'm not. Post a link and prove your not.

You're the one who said that people in bars are boring, that you'd have nothing in common with them and implying that you wouldn't want to go to one... and that I shouldn't want to go...as far as I'm concerned, you're looking down on them... and when you connect some of the things you've said in other threads, using your semi-elitist stance on the working class, I could only assume you felt they were a bunch of redneck *******s...

 

[Spider-Bite]

There would be a way, look at all the other countries that have lower drinking ages.

But, Spider-Bite doesn't know what liberty is aparently.

well come on, find some stats that show a lower drinking age leads to less drinking or better lives, or something good.

For oen thing I doubt being addicted to a substance makes people feel liberated, when they wish they could stop using it. That is important to consider. Letting kids ruin their lives isn't liberty.

and seriously with all the oppression and horrible things going on in the world why am I being accused of being anti-liberty just because I think the drinking age should be 21?

Talk about exagerating. You make it sound like I support slavery or something. Get real man. If your going to talk about liberty, pick a different thread. I think gay people in Iran would be laughing at this right now. You think your oppressed because you have to wait untill your 21 to drink?

this isn't discrimination or oppression. this isn't a clamp on your freedom of speech, right to assemble, religion, or your right to criticize the government.

This is not the animal kingdom. There are laws and rules for us all, and they are necessary to have an enjoyable society to live in. You can't just dismiss every law and oppose it based on liberty alone. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. Yes liberty is an important factor. One of the most important in fact, but not the only one.

If liberty is your whole argument, and your argument is convincing than shouldnt' we legalize heroin, crack, even machine guns?

Or is it possible that sometimes it's not worth the consequences to society? It's possible that lowering the drinking age might be worth it, I just believe it's not, and nobody has provided an argument showing how the positives outweight the negatives. That is why you have to provide more than just "liberty" because people could say that about any law.

I'm sure that after reading this you can understand how a person can believe in freedom, but still desire a little more information or reasoning before coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

[SuBe]

and yes it is the government's responsiblity to tell people how to behave. That is why we have laws, police officers, and jails. .

No, you don't know what liberty is, as shown in the above Quote. You can't have any possiblity to understand what it is. Government is NOT, I repeat NOT here to tell us how to behave or tell us what to do by any means. Governments soul responsibility as dictated in the Constitution is the Protection From Threats, foreign and Domestic. Everything else got junk-piled on, especially in the 1910's-1940's.

Saying things like that, only proves you either don't know what liberty is, or prefer a form on Government based on Tyranny and Fascism. Your thoughts on the other threads about Punishing Families with Incomes over $200,000. You seem to be Anti-Capitalist and Pro-Statist.

You don't know what liberty is, I've given you ample time to respond to it. You think that it is better to make the Government Control people's behavior than having the freedom of choice to do so. You believe that Government knows best, and we should just follow what they say like SHEEP? No, the United States Government works for us, they are hired by us, they are funded by us, they work to serve us. And their only role should be the preservations of Freedom as dictated by the Constitution. And, limited your behavior for you own good is not Freedom or Liberty. That IS oppression, whether it is drinking, or having a gun, or where you can live, or the work that you can do, it is oppression, and it only starts with one thing. We already with a Government that believes they can control you, whether by your tax dollars or with jail. But, that is not what they are there for. The Government is not a nanny, keeping a watchful eye over us. The Government is supposed to protect my rights, not abolish it.

The Reason we Have Police is the Protection of Rights. If you harm me, or destroy my property. My Rights end right where your begin, and it's the same for you. You should be ashamed of yourself that you think you know better than others on how to live their life. If they want to make a mistake, then let them. But, it is not your place or even Government's place to coddle them. It is not your place or Governments place to make any decision for anyone else.

And your little remark about waiting until I'm 21 to drink, I didn't wait when I was 15, I didn't wait until I was 21, I am probably far older than you. And I obviously lived far more than you have, you need to wake up and see where we would be going if we follow the path you seem to think this country needs to go.

And for one more thing, it's been tried. Fascism, Statism, Nationalism. It's been tried.

 

[jaguarr]

No, you don't know what liberty is, as shown in the above Quote. You can't have any possiblity to understand what it is. Government is NOT, I repeat NOT here to tell us how to behave or tell us what to do by any means. Governments soul responsibility as dictated in the Constitution is the Protection From Threats, foreign and Domestic. Everything else got junk-piled on, especially in the 1910's-1940's.

Saying things like that, only proves you either don't know what liberty is, or prefer a form on Government based on Tyranny and Fascism. Your thoughts on the other threads about Punishing Families with Incomes over $200,000. You seem to be Anti-Capitalist and Pro-Statist.

You don't know what liberty is, I've given you ample time to respond to it. You think that it is better to make the Government Control people's behavior than having the freedom of choice to do so. You believe that Government knows best, and we should just follow what they say like SHEEP? No, the United States Government works for us, they are hired by us, they are funded by us, they work to serve us. And their only role should be the preservations of Freedom as dictated by the Constitution. And, limited your behavior for you own good is not Freedom or Liberty. That IS oppression, whether it is drinking, or having a gun, or where you can live, or the work that you can do, it is oppression, and it only starts with one thing. We already with a Government that believes they can control you, whether by your tax dollars or with jail. But, that is not what they are there for. The Government is not a nanny, keeping a watchful eye over us. The Government is supposed to protect my rights, not abolish it.

The Reason we Have Police is the Protection of Rights. If you harm me, or destroy my property. My Rights end right where your begin, and it's the same for you. You should be ashamed of yourself that you think you know better than others on how to live their life. If they want to make a mistake, then let them. But, it is not your place or even Government's place to coddle them. It is not your place or Governments place to make any decision for anyone else.

And your little remark about waiting until I'm 21 to drink, I didn't wait when I was 15, I didn't wait until I was 21, I am probably far older than you. And I obviously lived far more than you have, you need to wake up and see where we would be going if we follow the path you seem to think this country needs to go.

And for one more thing, it's been tried. Fascism, Statism, Nationalism. It's been tried.

*slow clap*

jag

 

[Matt]

No, you don't know what liberty is, as shown in the above Quote. You can't have any possiblity to understand what it is. Government is NOT, I repeat NOT here to tell us how to behave or tell us what to do by any means. Governments soul responsibility as dictated in the Constitution is the Protection From Threats, foreign and Domestic. Everything else got junk-piled on, especially in the 1910's-1940's.

Saying things like that, only proves you either don't know what liberty is, or prefer a form on Government based on Tyranny and Fascism. Your thoughts on the other threads about Punishing Families with Incomes over $200,000. You seem to be Anti-Capitalist and Pro-Statist.

You don't know what liberty is, I've given you ample time to respond to it. You think that it is better to make the Government Control people's behavior than having the freedom of choice to do so. You believe that Government knows best, and we should just follow what they say like SHEEP? No, the United States Government works for us, they are hired by us, they are funded by us, they work to serve us. And their only role should be the preservations of Freedom as dictated by the Constitution. And, limited your behavior for you own good is not Freedom or Liberty. That IS oppression, whether it is drinking, or having a gun, or where you can live, or the work that you can do, it is oppression, and it only starts with one thing. We already with a Government that believes they can control you, whether by your tax dollars or with jail. But, that is not what they are there for. The Government is not a nanny, keeping a watchful eye over us. The Government is supposed to protect my rights, not abolish it.

The Reason we Have Police is the Protection of Rights. If you harm me, or destroy my property. My Rights end right where your begin, and it's the same for you. You should be ashamed of yourself that you think you know better than others on how to live their life. If they want to make a mistake, then let them. But, it is not your place or even Government's place to coddle them. It is not your place or Governments place to make any decision for anyone else.

And your little remark about waiting until I'm 21 to drink, I didn't wait when I was 15, I didn't wait until I was 21, I am probably far older than you. And I obviously lived far more than you have, you need to wake up and see where we would be going if we follow the path you seem to think this country needs to go.

And for one more thing, it's been tried. Fascism, Statism, Nationalism. It's been tried.

Yeah! And Fairtax is the balls!

But seriously SB...beautifully put.

 

[SuBe]

*slow clap*

jag

Yeah! And Fairtax is the balls!

But seriously SB...beautifully put.

Thank you very much. It pains me to see that a lot of kids, or even adults can't tell you what Liberty is, or Freedoms, or hell, even the difference between Liberty and Freedom!!!!!

ARGH!

"The Land of Liberty" is not a Statement, it is a reality. And the more we give it up, or don't even understand the difference, the more endangered our Values and and livelihoods become.

 

[Captain Planet!]

They should lower the drinking age to 12.

 

[JP]

18 year olds will still get their alcohol either way. Might as well make it legal.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Yeah! And Fairtax is the balls!

But seriously SB...beautifully put.

*slow clap*

jag

first off why are you guys encouraging him? His post containts non truths and half truths, and still absolutely no evidence to show how lowering the drinking age will benefit society. His whole argument is basically he supports small government, where as I made support and oppose big government depending on the issue or situation. He doesn't even know what these big words mean he's throwing around. Half of them having nothing do with the topic.

No, you don't know what liberty is, as shown in the above Quote. You can't have any possiblity to understand what it is. Government is NOT, I repeat NOT here to tell us how to behave or tell us what to do by any means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government


1.the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
What do you think laws are? They are rules. They are statments telling you how you must behave in order to not be punished by the government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

And before you try and call me a despot wannabe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

1.a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. 2.any tyrant or oppressor. 3.History/Historical. an honorary title applied to a Byzantine emperor, afterward to members of his family, and later to Byzantine vassal rulers and governors.

Governments soul responsibility as dictated in the Constitution is the Protection From Threats, foreign and Domestic. Everything else got junk-piled on, especially in the 1910's-1940's.

You see in a country with liberty, citizens are allowed to have different opinions about what they believe should be the responsiblity of the government. I believe the government also has a responsiblity to enrich the lives of the people living under it. We have a responsiblity to help people live good lives. We have a responsiblity to build a better tomorrow.

Saying things like that, only proves you either don't know what liberty is, or prefer a form on Government based on Tyranny and Fascism. Your thoughts on the other threads about Punishing Families with Incomes over $200,000. You seem to be Anti-Capitalist and Pro-Statist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

Since when do I want a dicatorship? What does any of this have to do with dictatorships? Absolutely nothing. That is why your rant is worthless. Your saying things and injecting words into this, that have nothing to do with the drinking age. How did this become a conversation about dictatorships? Please answer that. Actually answer it, and not with some sarcastic response.

You don't know what liberty is, I've given you ample time to respond to it. You think that it is better to make the Government Control people's behavior than having the freedom of choice to do so.

In some instances. Yes. This not the animal kingdom. It's essential for a civilized society.

You believe that Government knows best,

actually government is not a thinking diety. I agree with some members of the government some of the time, and disagree other times. However I beleive that through the collective will and effort of 300,000,000 people, we can accomplish a lot more than one person can alone. Some call it big bad government. I call it millions of people working together towards a common cause.

and we should just follow what they say like SHEEP?

I never advocated any support for a dicatorship. If you disagree with the law, you have several options.
1. vote
2. Get involved, protest
3. disobey the law and risk the consequences

No, the United States Government works for us, they are hired by us, they are funded by us, they work to serve us. And their only role should be the preservations of Freedom as dictated by the Constitution.

so now the drinking age is unconstitutional huh? Well take it up with the supreme court.

And, limited your behavior for you own good is not Freedom or Liberty. That IS oppression, whether it is drinking, or having a gun, or where you can live, or the work that you can do, it is oppression, and it only starts with one thing. We already with a Government that believes they can control you, whether by your tax dollars or with jail.

so now we should just tear down all of our jails? how are we supposed to enforce the law? You sound more and more like an anarchist who hates America, and wants to bring down the system and create chaos. You actually sound crazy.

But, that is not what they are there for. The Government is not a nanny, keeping a watchful eye over us. The Government is supposed to protect my rights, not abolish it.

You have every right to vote for politicians who will or will not treat the government like a nanny. I believe that humans are imperfect and society's development should be guided, because humans are capable of doing absolutely horrible things. Look at history, we have to improve society so that these types of things are less likely to happen inthe future. We have to improve society in countless ways, to protect children from being molested, children from being abandoned, women from being raped, and people from poverty, an countless other things. Soceity has come a long way, and it's going to keep coming. But in order to do the things I mentioned we have to not only fight oppression, but depression, misery, and suffering. We have to build a better world, and you can't do it without the government.

We also have to get off of oil. You think the free market is going to do that? Hell no it ain't.

The Reason we Have Police is the Protection of Rights. If you harm me, or destroy my property.

Yeah and we need jails in order to do that. And you know what? this drinking age is directly connected to what you just mentioned. Doesn't having a larger number of alcoholics in America make you more likely to be harmed or have your property destroyed? Yes it does, very, very, very much so. Alcohol makes people violent. In fact a very large number of homicides are committed while intoxicated on alcohol.

My Rights end right where your begin, and it's the same for you. You should be ashamed of yourself that you think you know better than others on how to live their life. If they want to make a mistake, then let them. But, it is not your place or even Government's place to coddle them. It is not your place or Governments place to make any decision for anyone else.

A matter of opinion. You see I believe the government should rely on research and the help of psychologist, economists, and other experts. I believe in gathering information and making an informed decision.

And your little remark about waiting until I'm 21 to drink, I didn't wait when I was 15, I didn't wait until I was 21, I am probably far older than you. And I obviously lived far more than you have, you need to wake up and see where we would be going if we follow the path you seem to think this country needs to go.

Trust me I believe you. I think you drank half your brain away. You sound like a crazed drunk ready to go out and beat somebody up. LOL

And for one more thing, it's been tried. Fascism, Statism, Nationalism. It's been tried.

so has letting kids drink, and like the stats I provided show. It's not good for 15 year olds to drink.

Facism? Just becaues one law is bad, doesn't mean they all are. Statism? Actually it worked. It worked for a lot of people. Got me treatment for my anxiety disorder. The federal government gave me financial aid for college. And government programs even got my aunt walking again, when she coudln't pay for her own treatment. oh but since it's not the government's responsiblity, I guess that is actually a bad thing, huh?

Nationalism? It works for me. Working to better humanity is a noble cause. Sometimes nationalism means a belief in superirority, but sometimes it is a belief in helping your fellow community.

 

[The Senator]

No, you don't know what liberty is, as shown in the above Quote. You can't have any possiblity to understand what it is. Government is NOT, I repeat NOT here to tell us how to behave or tell us what to do by any means. Governments soul responsibility as dictated in the Constitution is the Protection From Threats, foreign and Domestic. Everything else got junk-piled on, especially in the 1910's-1940's.

Saying things like that, only proves you either don't know what liberty is, or prefer a form on Government based on Tyranny and Fascism. Your thoughts on the other threads about Punishing Families with Incomes over $200,000. You seem to be Anti-Capitalist and Pro-Statist.

You don't know what liberty is, I've given you ample time to respond to it. You think that it is better to make the Government Control people's behavior than having the freedom of choice to do so. You believe that Government knows best, and we should just follow what they say like SHEEP? No, the United States Government works for us, they are hired by us, they are funded by us, they work to serve us. And their only role should be the preservations of Freedom as dictated by the Constitution. And, limited your behavior for you own good is not Freedom or Liberty. That IS oppression, whether it is drinking, or having a gun, or where you can live, or the work that you can do, it is oppression, and it only starts with one thing. We already with a Government that believes they can control you, whether by your tax dollars or with jail. But, that is not what they are there for. The Government is not a nanny, keeping a watchful eye over us. The Government is supposed to protect my rights, not abolish it.

The Reason we Have Police is the Protection of Rights. If you harm me, or destroy my property. My Rights end right where your begin, and it's the same for you. You should be ashamed of yourself that you think you know better than others on how to live their life. If they want to make a mistake, then let them. But, it is not your place or even Government's place to coddle them. It is not your place or Governments place to make any decision for anyone else.

And your little remark about waiting until I'm 21 to drink, I didn't wait when I was 15, I didn't wait until I was 21, I am probably far older than you. And I obviously lived far more than you have, you need to wake up and see where we would be going if we follow the path you seem to think this country needs to go.

And for one more thing, it's been tried. Fascism, Statism, Nationalism. It's been tried.

You know, we've argued about a few things before, but we share a lot of the same views on things. And I agree with you, 100%, that we should not let the government encroach on our responsibilities, to determine which age we're all "responsible adults." Some people are responsible at the age of 16, others it takes until they hit their late twenties before they are responsible adults. For the government to set an arbitrary drinking age (21), I think it is a slap in the face for all of the 18-year-olds out there who drink anyway and have shown society that they can be responsible even with alcohol in their possession.

As I've said, I've been drunk a few times, most notably the first two weeks of my freshman year in college. But, I wised up, I no longer drink to get drunk, I drink because I like some alcoholic beverages and because it is a nice way to kick back with friends. And yeah, occasionally I get drunk, but I never put myself or others in any life threatening situation.

There will always be people who cross a line. People will drink to get drunk and become alcoholics, some will get behind the wheel of a car and run over a bicyclist, others may throw themselves down a flight of stairs... but that's a minority of drinkers, even at the age of 18. It's like banning handguns because some people can't obey the laws, or banning cars because some people drive over the speed limit. You're taking away a person's right to make decisions for themselves and hone up to their own responsibilities. No age limit will ever substitute our own ability to make well informed, or poor informed, decisions. It is all up to us, not the federal government.

 

[SuBe]

You know, we've argued about a few things before, but we share a lot of the same views on things. And I agree with you, 100%, that we should not let the government encroach on our responsibilities, to determine which age we're all "responsible adults." Some people are responsible at the age of 16, others it takes until they hit their late twenties before they are responsible adults. For the government to set an arbitrary drinking age (21), I think it is a slap in the face for all of the 18-year-olds out there who drink anyway and have shown society that they can be responsible even with alcohol in their possession.

As I've said, I've been drunk a few times, most notably the first two weeks of my freshman year in college. But, I wised up, I no longer drink to get drunk, I drink because I like some alcoholic beverages and because it is a nice way to kick back with friends. And yeah, occasionally I get drunk, but I never put myself or others in any life threatening situation.

There will always be people who cross a line. People will drink to get drunk and become alcoholics, some will get behind the wheel of a car and run over a bicyclist, others may throw themselves down a flight of stairs... but that's a minority of drinkers, even at the age of 18. It's like banning handguns because some people can't obey the laws, or banning cars because some people drive over the speed limit. You're taking away a person's right to make decisions for themselves and hone up to their own responsibilities. No age limit will ever substitute our own ability to make well informed, or poor informed, decisions. It is all up to us, not the federal government.

Jman, we agree more than disagree. We just have different ways of solving things.

My beef is, Spider-Bite seems to believe that it is ok to let Government control you, or make decisions for you and this is extremely dangerous. "For the Common Good" I assume. But, that is just too Marxist and Fascist for me. Like I've said over and over again, I side on Freedom. People should be free to make any decision they want, and as long as no one else is hurt, or nothing is stolen, or no one was Frauded out of anything, then so be it. I don't believe in Victimless Crimes.

 

[Spider-Bite]

You know, we've argued about a few things before, but we share a lot of the same views on things. And I agree with you, 100%, that we should not let the government encroach on our responsibilities, to determine which age we're all "responsible adults." Some people are responsible at the age of 16, others it takes until they hit their late twenties before they are responsible adults. For the government to set an arbitrary drinking age (21), I think it is a slap in the face for all of the 18-year-olds out there who drink anyway and have shown society that they can be responsible even with alcohol in their possession.

As I've said, I've been drunk a few times, most notably the first two weeks of my freshman year in college. But, I wised up, I no longer drink to get drunk, I drink because I like some alcoholic beverages and because it is a nice way to kick back with friends. And yeah, occasionally I get drunk, but I never put myself or others in any life threatening situation.

There will always be people who cross a line. People will drink to get drunk and become alcoholics, some will get behind the wheel of a car and run over a bicyclist, others may throw themselves down a flight of stairs... but that's a minority of drinkers, even at the age of 18. It's like banning handguns because some people can't obey the laws, or banning cars because some people drive over the speed limit. You're taking away a person's right to make decisions for themselves and hone up to their own responsibilities. No age limit will ever substitute our own ability to make well informed, or poor informed, decisions. It is all up to us, not the federal government.

You do not agree with all of that 100%. You have made it clear in your previous posts, that you are not some far right wing conservative, who believes the government should just sit back and let the rich dominate everything. Becaue that is the role of the government he is advoacting. A government that does nothing but prevent foreigners, and citizens from murdering, stealing, or hurting people. Under his government nobody would pick up your garbage, deliver your mail, teach your kids math, science, etc. We would have no NASA. NO funding for embryonic stem cell research. No government grants for scientific research or college. No rehabilitation programs for people like my Aunt who has spent years in a wheel chair. This program got her walking again. In a few years it's possible she could throw away her wheel chair. I know that is not the America you believe in.

And honestly despite the fact that you argue with me all the time, do you think I'm some kind of Hitler or something? don't you think that is a little absurd? This guy is going way out on the wire with a very ridiculous rant, using words when he didn't even know what they meant.
I went on to say what liberty was, and he said that was not liberty, and I provided a link to the definition showing it was exactly what I said it was. same thing for government and tyranny.

He even accused me of supporting a dictatorship. when have I ever said I wanted a dictatorship?

Look based on the arguments made and the data that has been shown to me, I believe the appropiate age is 21. Despite all of these personal attacks at my character, nobody has once provided any data or reasoning to show how lowering the drinking age will help people live better lives. It's possible I'm wrong, and if people show me some data I will look at it. I keep asking but nobody is providing.

If you can prove or even strongly suggest that lowering the drinking age will make people more likely to graduate from college, less likely to end up in prison, or less likely to have problems such as depression, I will support it. I put that in bold, because I'd really be interested in reading it or hearing it. It's not a challenge or suggestion that you or nobody else can.

but nobody has even tried. All they do is resort to "ahh liberty, I support freedom and your a tyrant." I mean come on. That's not a debate. That is mud slinging. It makes it look like they have to attack me, because their position can't stand on it's own two feet with research or reasoning.