Satenza

It isn't a case of "turning to such practises", you practice satanism, the only thing you do differently to those who do it as a philosophy is that they don't apolgise for it.

Whoever called it santist shot themself in the foot there. Expecting people to read. Pft.

I've never made a topic either :o Anyway, traditions? Iono. We just had fun.

Wearing The Inside Out - Pink Floyd. Hm, The Division Bell is becoming my second favourite Floyd album.

Governments always draft bills incorrectly because when it comes to law making they arn't the greatest people to do it. Thats why Judges can make common law to fill in the gaps, or clear up confusion made in a bill.

Thats probably because the Chav eqivilents in your country look a lot less ridiculous then the ones in ours. Even though i don't know what half the labels mean. Im sure they don't go around wearing striped tracksuits.

I don't really care about chavs, they can do what they like. I never had any trouble from them before. American version of chavs just look like average young people over here. I think America has much more labels than England.

People seem to keep drawing lines between people being in the military and drinking being more responsible than people not in the military drinking. Which is beside the point. The fact is, the military is more dangerous than drinking, you can join the military at a much younger age so if we entrust young people to be able to make that decision responsibly then it's only fair they should be able to make the responsible decision to drink or not.

>

It isn't about whether it's brain altering or not. It's about trust. Your trsuting a 16 year old to go kill people but not to drink. Or maybe not physologically mature enough in terms of the effects? Assumption, many people under the age of 21 are mature in how they drink. Thats why the required age to drink is lower in most other countries. I see the physological effects of seeing people killed, and indeed killing people much more adverse than drinking.

Is this before, or after crippling your decision making faculties with chemicals? The decsion to drink responsibly. Im sure the majority of people here who have drank before 21 have never hurt or harmed anyone when under the influence. The risks of drinking is much less than the risk of being killed during war. And to the rest, don't you think that the army takes a responsible person to do that job? If you arn't trusting someone with the ability to handle drink responsibly then even after training what reason is there to trust them to do their job which is much more dangerous to themselves and others, properly? Your basically saying, here take a gun and go kill. But don't take a beer, you're not responsible enough yet.

Your not trusting those who drink to make correct decisions. The majority of people still have common sense. If you don't trust 16 year olds to drink responsibly then why do you trsut them to use a gun responsibly when in a combat situation. You know, bullets flying at them and civilians running everywhere? They may have had training to be responsible in the army, just like they have had lessons to tell them to drink responsibly. I find it somewhat of a contradiction to say those people will have learn't of the responsibility to use a gun properly, but not to drink responsibly.

So you would trust someone with a gun who you can't trust not to drink and harm others or themself?

Even when it's passed, common law will fill in the gaps.

It's not the safety of your sons that matters in this situation. The safety is for the people in the car that your son smashes into because he's drunk and too young to make an intelligent decision about driving drunk, when he is drunk. So, lets trust someone with a gun, who we can't trust to not drink and drive?

Well, it doesn't have to be in just deaths, I think we could do it from a monetary standpoint, and I think it'd be next to impossible to make the case that alcohol is better for our society than is the armed forces. But I think I digress. Your first statement to me was that joining the army gave an increased risk of death and other mental health issues. I'm still doubtful that's the case. So, lets hypothesize. One son who is 18 comes to you and says he wants to join the army. The other who is also 18 comes to you and asks you for a beer. You're telling me you'd be more worried for the saftey of your second son than the first? Even if that was the case, there is still the matter of voting. The driving age is 16, so your not an adult yet. I was mainly talking about restricting adults (AKA people who vote) from activities like drinking.

It doesn't matter exclusivley about deaths, the risk factor for going in the army is much, much higher than drinking a few years younger. Both from mental and health issues and death. I don't know how you could contest that. Im trying to see what your saying, but it sounds very much like "Going into the army has less risk than drinking".

You know that argument's not going to fly with me. The armed forces is a career choice, whereas alcohol is a judgment impairing drug. Under the influence of this drug, you can do much worse than you could do in the army. Whether or not it is a career choice does not matter. The point is that it is a choice. A more deadly and health affecting choice than drinking. Do all drinkers develop health problems? No. Do the majority of people in the army find it hard to cope with what they have seen (AKA mental issues) after? Yes. The dangers of joining the army outweigh that of drinking alcohol a few years younger by a hell of a lot. So why can we trust these people to be responsible in the army, yet not to drink responsibly?

But he is sorry he acted so disgustingly, and you know religion. That makes it all better.

Joining the army gives an increased risk of death and other health/mental issues. Joining the army is a much more serious respinsibility than drinking. Yet we are going to allow people, who can't even decide if they will drink or not to make it? Same goes for voting. We don't trust people to be responsible with their drink, but voting, thats no issue.

It's neither a right nor a neccessity. I guess you could call it a priveledge however why should the government decide what priveledges you can and cannot part take in? I won't argue morality. However i will agrue practicality. In America, you are allowed to die for your country at 16, you are allowed to decide who runs your country at 18. Technicaly, most people would consider you an adult at 18 and so why is there a 21 age limit on alchohol? In my opinion it is ridiculous to entrust someone with the decision of joining the army or voting and not extending that to drinking. Unless whether or not having a beer is a more important decision than sacrificing your life for your country. Hypocricy, in my opinion.

I missed out on tickets for Leeds. Looks so fun aswell!

Yes, it's sexist in a way. But only in a utopian way, and as soon as you enstate utopian ideals you forget about reality. Reality is the most important thing to enstate rules in consideration of.

How can you take advantage of passive foreign policy? Terrorists are pissed off with America for it's past, guess who supplied countires with more military power to supress there people? America. Guess who decided to build a damn military base on holy soil in Saudi Arabia? America. Terrorists are pissed off by past aggressive foreign policys (usually spurred by the Cold War) America has had. It has enstated tyrants in the middle east, provided for them and made sure that they can maintain reign by porviding military power. If i were a citizen in one of those countries, i would be pretty damn pissed as well. Then when they fight back instead of asking what problesm they have they call it a war on terror and expect people to buy into that.

Of course it does, the music i like always affects some part of my thinking. Whether thats emotional, political or whatever.