SimplyAtheistic

I am starting this thread because of a discussion I wish to continue. In discussing the legal drinking age with soyze, he stated that it should not be lowered because the losses would not be acceptable. My question is, what is acceptable? Where do you draw the line and say " Ok, its cool if x number of people die, but if x+1 die then we have to do something". I respect soyze's desire to preserve human life, but I believe his views are flawed. The loss of human life is an unpleasant thing, but it is inevitable. I ask you soyze, why not outlaw social meetings, outlaw places such as movie theaters, because there is the risk of someone getting killed because of a fight. Why not outlaw driving, there are many deaths each year because of auto accidents. I am young, so I suppose I am less conservative, but I find no reason to be as conservative as most adults.

keyser_soze

You seem to be a reasonable young man, I would suggest not putting straw men into the mix. The discussion is why the age of drinking is not lowered. I had another response for you, but the other thread was closed. Basically, the short of it is...that you cannot make a true judgement on what is an acceptable loss, because you cannot concieve of what a drastic personal loss is. You have no children or spouse to lose. On top of which, you are still an adolescent, and suffer from what all of us did at one time, the "it'll never happen to me" belief. You state that you believe you are prepared to die, but real loss is greater than your life. Again, take the person that you care about most on the planet...Now, imagine some kid just ran over him/her by accident. How comforting is it that he/she will pay a court penalty? You have loss someone important to you? A friend, a family member, for those older of us, a child or wife. Now imagine it multiplied by a thousand, by two thousand....whatever the number may be. All for what? A drink? Is it worth being in torment the rest of your life for? At what point is a life worth a drink of alcohol. Ah, but it's about freedom you were going to say! Everything is about freedom isn't it? Perhaps someone thinks the law against rape and murder infringe on his rights. Where do YOU draw the line? For those of us who are aware that our own life is the least of things to lose, we know where the line is drawn. We put it there years ago. You cannot even begin to imagine the pain that has been seen on highways around the country as someone's daughter or son, father or mother, sister or brother was cut out of a wrecked pile of metal, dying agonizingly slow deaths, or burned alive, or nearly as bad, killed instantly, all through no fault of their own. You cannot even concieve such a horrendous thing. But we can. All for what? A beer? It really is about cost/savings. Teenagers are poor drivers anyway...add alcohol and it's that much worse. How many lives is your early age beer worth to you? You draw the line, and we'll happily discuss it with you. In the meantime, step back and cool it a bit...we're not attacking you, we're just fervently trying to get you to see beyond your personal experience. We are trying to give you the knowledge that we paid for with a lot of tears, without you having to do it yourself. It doesn't let you off the hook, you WILL suffer pain and loss, there's no way around it. It happens to everyone, sooner or later. But we are just trying to get you to put aside your feelings and desires for a moment, and calculate the REAL cost of that beer. I'm not saying don't drink..I like beer and scotch. Sure, you may be responsible enough to not hop in that car...but the fact is, that a good portion of your peers...they aren't. They'll do it in a heartbeat.

Gurdur

I have a request of both of you.

Please use paragraphs. Thanks. It would make life so much easier for the rest of us readers.

SimplyAtheistic

You have a reasonable stance on the subject, so I will attempt to show you my views. I would not legalize rape and murder because the sole intent of these crimes infringes upon other's rights in a direct manner. Drinking, while an indirect cause of many deaths, doesen't promote the idea of killing someone. I draw the line where there is a signficant portion of deaths associated with the act. If 2000 die a year because of it, that is less than .1% of the population, an acceptable cost. I don't wish death on any family, but it will happen no matter what. Again, I ask why not outlaw driving, as it indirectly causes a great deal of death in any given year.
Jake

keyser_soze

I'll try gurdur..



Anyway, as we had worked out, your freedom ends where mine begins. Is that acceptable to you? My freedom ends where your's begins. At what point would my freedom infringe on your's enough that you would consider the loss of freedom worth it? I'm not talking the whole homeland security thing. That's BS. I'm talking real laws here. No rape, murder, theft, molestation, assault. The things that endanger people. Do you think they should be allowed. You have to see that a line MUST be drawn somewhere. Should we move the line so that you can drink at 18 instead of 21? How many deaths, how many people have to become paralyzed, before that line becomes too costly? I appreciate your situation. It's rough at that age, hell, I was ready to off myself I felt so closed in! But you have to realize, that it's more than your life at stake. It's thousands, and until you lose someone important to you, and make that connection between statistics and REAL, LIVING, BREATHING, CARING people...then you cannot hope to understand where we're coming from. When you can understand what could be FAR worse than your own death, then you'll know. You are looking at it from the perspective that you would not do something that stupid. Maybe not, I already agreed to that. But if someone ran over you, left you paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of your life...would it comfort you that you gave up your life for the freedom to drink a beer? I know I'm belaboring the point...But you would never even be able to go to the toilet by yourself again. Can you dwell on the possibility, not of death, but of staring up at the ceiling for the rest of your life, so someone could have a beer?

keyser_soze

No, it doesn't have to happen. That's what you are missing. If a thousand kids a year died because of some medication would you simply keep prescribing it because "they'll die anyway"? No you would not. You have not made the link yet. .1% of the population is not a number, it's your next door neighbors. It's your mom and dad. It's your cousins, your favourite teacher, your friends at school. It's all those people, because to someone...that statistic is just that. It's a number until it happens to you, and then you get moved over to the side of "it happened to him". Are you willing to trade your family for early drinking priviledges?

keyser_soze

BTW, a lot of things that do not INTEND to kill you do, should we just ignore safety measures because it was not their intent? People die eventually, that doesn't mean they WILL before their death of old age. The fact that people die does not excuse responsibility.

SimplyAtheistic

You are still missing the point here. It WOULD be tragic if I lost a loved one due to some alcohol related incident. Just as it would be tragic if I lost a loved one to a regular car crash. I take the stance that tragedies WILL happen, in some fashion. So, I hope the laws would minimize these tragedies without infringing upon too many of our freedoms. I again ask you, why not outlaw driving?
Jake

SimplyAtheistic

Well, since drinking alcohol does not gurantee death, I wouldn't consider it a freedom that should be revoked. And about the medicine, you might want to boycott aspirin since many people die every year because of it, due to overdose, reaction, whatever.
Jake

SimplyAtheistic

Driving does not intend to kill you, but it does in some cases. Let's take away vehicles.
Jake