keyser_soze

I have answered it. I said it was inappropriate to use a straw man in the argument, as did another poster(You probably are just not experienced with debate rules yet)...Look I understand that you want to be right, and to have your stance accepted. But you are in the wrong forum for the kind of views you wish to see.

There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brain falls out onto the floor. You will notice that Pat's stance fell flat on it's face, despite the fact that he thought it was quite reasonable.

You need to ask yourself, "why is my stance not being accepted by a rational bunch of people?" Make a poll of the question you want to ask, find out what the majority feel, and why.

I can tell you now, you will not get the support you are thinking is your right because we should "agree" automatically with "freedom is most important" approach, due to our rational leanings and freedom from oppression nature. The truth is, we're just older, and freedom at all costs lost it's sparkle a long time ago for us. It will for you as well...Well, not certainly...some people keep such things dear to them for their lives. But they all join militia groups and roam about the woods eating MRE's and shooting wild animals while building fallout shelters.

Your beliefs will mature with time, unfortunately, some of the people who run the country are just insane, and that doesn't change. No smilie, I'm dead serious. The statement "we are all atheists, I just believe in one LESS god than you" applies. We all believe in freedom, some of us just believe in one LESS freedom than you. And not so much a freedom, as a degree of freedom. You are young and passionate, you want the world to be right and just. You want fairness, but don't realize that all parties pay a price for the "most" fairness for all. You gotta pay to play.


Back to your question of recreational driving, please don't ruin what has been a decent line of debate by starting fallacious arguments. As I said, I am retiring in favour of a hopefully more convincing poster. But I would suggest you stick to proper debate style, as they are quick to jump on what you are attempting to do...and they are not all so polite, or understanding. But then again, after being awake so long, I cannot assume that I did not veer from the path myself....but I'm quite sure someone will let me know soon enough if I did. Hell, I may wake up in the morning, shaking my head and wondering what the hell I was thinking about at the time....Who knows?

paragraphs for gurdur. You're worth the effor buddy! :cheers:

excreationist

Perhaps the problem can't be undone though... if alcohol was harder to get kids might turn to sniffing paint or petrol fumes - or drugs - apparently it is fairly widespread even in kids as young as 12 or 10. But in the end it comes down to what the government (elected by the voters) wants... though sometimes it gets stricter about alcohol (e.g. in the 1920's? in the U.S.)

That sounds fairly reasonable but I wonder if there is hard evidence for a strong link between the legal drinking age and the amount of long-term alcoholism...

excreationist

What do you mean by "recreational driving"? Is driving kids to school "recreational driving"? What about visiting a sick relative in hospital? What about going shopping - partly for groceries, and partly to visit the cinema? Would police stop people's cars all the time to make sure the person is not driving for purely a recreational reason?

keyser_soze

http://www.rsoa.org/


A search here should allay any curiosity on the subject.

Gurdur

Well, thank-you !

Nicest thing anyone has said about me all week !


I actually read far, far more than I ever comment on here; I take people seriously unless they prove themselves unworthy.
For me, it's little problem to actually skip a peson's posts rather than skipping the whole thread; and if somone takes the effort to post substantive stuff, well-laid-out, then I regard it as good to read it and keep track.

keyser_soze

Then I would humbly suggest you skip about 92% of my posts!

Gurdur

Come, come now; no need to be so self-abnegating.
I estimate only about 17 % in your case, not 92 %.

keyser_soze

Then I must up my bid to 93%. As you have provided no evidence to the contrary, but I have first person evidence in the matter. I happen to know the author, and he does tend to go on.

excreationist

Thanks for that... their links section seems to be the most relevant part as far as what I was wondering about...
If it is true that a lower legal age for drinking means that there would be more long-term alcoholics then it seems that having the drinking age be at 18 is a mistake... though it is consistent to have legal drinking at that age - I mean in Australia at least I think you're considered an adult in virtually every way (voting, etc) at the age of 18 or younger. Though things like car insurance and welfare treat 18-25ish year-olds differently to older adults.

Jinto

I absolutely hate threads where people assume that their opponents are incapable of understanding them due to their age.

As for keyser_soze:

Is this a reasonable argument?