BlueTear Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 So you would trust someone with a gun who you can't trust not to drink and harm others or themself? So you're asking me, would I trust a sober person with the proper training to handle a gun to handle said gun in a correct fashion, or would I trust someone under the influence of a chemical substance known to impair judgement, causes memory loss or just plain some really messed up decisions. ... is this a trick question? -This message was deviously brought to you by: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTear Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Your not trusting those who drink to make correct decisions. The majority of people still have common sense. Is this before, or after crippling your decision making faculties with chemicals? 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 tobe responsilbe in the army, just like they have had lessons to tell them to drink responsibly. 'cause it's not like military grade weapons training is so different in depth, scope and layout from high school classes where they go "drinking is bad, 'mkay?" to make the comparison not only invalid, but ridicolously so? For starters, there's the whole theoretical education that has to be passed before you get to touch a weapon. If you don't pass it, you don't get your weapon. Period. Then there's the whole handling the weapon. Should your instructors at any point during the weeks or months (depending on what we're learning, and how well we're meant to shoot with it) - not hours - feel you are not observing proper safety regulations, they'll take your gun away and send you back to stage one - or if the severity is grave enough, just plain not train you, and you don't get to handle a weapon. And amusingly one, of the first lessons involves the use of alcohol, and other substances that alter your brain chemistry. You do not, ever, EVER, use these when you're going to be shooting. Zero tolerance. Funny thing that really. They train you for ages, rigorously, and then they don't actually trust you to handle the weapon while even recovering from the influence of alcohol. It's almost like they think all those weeks of training is going to be forgotten, or ignored, while alcohol is busy fiddling with your brain chemistry, altering your perceptions and behaviour. Red *hint* tags regarding important paragraph's available on request. -This message was deviously brought to you by: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 You make a good point. Drinkers aren't trained to drink. hence why I feel the argument I presented on the last page of a gradual introduction of alcohol to kids by parents holds some merit. Don't they have drug and alcohol education at high schools? I know I didn't go through one that I can remember (apart from a few guest lectures), but I know a people a few years younger did. If they don't have education programs, they better well should, it's the governments responsibility to make sure that people are informed of mind-body altering substances; whether that be alcohol or a cancer treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Your not trusting those who drink to make correct decisions. The majority of people still have common sense. 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTear Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 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. First of all, I'd like to point out the difference between hurting someone and responsible drinking. Generally speaking, if you don't remember what you did last night because you were too drunk, it wasn't responsible, regardless of hurt inflicted on your fellow humans. Second of all, once you've started drinking, your judgement is going to be impaired. There is no getting around this fact. Drunk you, is not sober you. Drunk you do not neccesarily share your moral codex, your thoughts, idea's, opinions and behaviour of the sober you. Most importantly, drunk you does not neccesarily make the same decisions a sober you would have done. Saying "I'll never drink and drive" while sober is one thing, and I'll happily applaud you for saying it, but am I going to trust you, 100%, to stick by that decision if enough chemicals are cruising your synapses? Heck. No. Your judgement is chemically impaired. You can talk about trust til your face turns blue, brain altering chemistry is still going to be at work. The risks of drinking is much less than the risk of being killed during war. The phrase that comes to mind is "in charge of one's mental faculties. 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? Lol, I suppose it could just be the whole brain altering chemistry thing again. I just tend to favour people without chemicals messing with their heads to do things, properly. Your basically saying, here take a gun and go kill. But don't take a beer, you're not responsible enough yet. Or maybe not physologically mature enough in terms of the effects? -This message was deviously brought to you by: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Lol, I suppose it could just be the whole brain altering chemistry thing again. I just tend to favour people without chemicals messing with their heads to do things, properly. 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. Your basically saying, here take a gun and go kill. But don't take a beer, you're not responsible enough yet. 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captindeath Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Someone obviously missed my other post on this. First off, I have never heard of a 16 year going off to fight in the military. Also, being in the military is not required, so you are not just trusting every person under the age of 21 with deadly weapons. Also, I would trust someone trained in the military with weapons rather than some drunk person, underaged or not. People who join the military are trained to be responsible and handle situations with professionalism and responsibility. To become a soldier, you do not just sign up and get a gun. You must be chosen by a committee and if you do not show that you are capable of having the responsibilty of protecting this country, you will be weeded out or sent home. You trying to say that if someone CAN fight they SHOULD be able to drink. The key is that most underage people who just want to dink have no intention of going into the military. Now why should they be able to drink underage if they are not going to fight. The law says that you cant drink under 21 and people should obey it. Just because when you turn 18 and are allowed to be in the military is no reason to allow them to drink illegally because you are not in the military. I am sure if you could not wait to drink without getting in trouble for it you could join the military and I bet if you walked into a bar, not only would people let you have beer, they would probably pay for it as well. But as I said earlier, you dont have a lot of time to drink when in the military, you busy learning how to use those weapons efficiently and effectively to protect our nation. Bottom line, if you have the balls to fight in the military, youll be able to drink without anybody really getting upset. Everyone I have heard make that argument would never even consider to make the sacrifice what it takes to be in the military. They just want an excuse to be able to drink legally. It is illegaly to drink underage and just because you could fight if you want to (and you probably dont) does not mean that do fight military. There is a large difference. As I said, it takes a lot of courage, honor, and pride to be in the military and to fight for our country. When you turn, they dont just throw you into combat, they still train you and make sure that you are capable to fight. They will not send fresh 18 year olds into combat unless it is abosolutly necassary, and if that ever becomes an issue, you wont be worrying about whether you can drink, but rather whether we will continue to be a country or at least a free one. Nobody can control his own life. The best you can do is chose to fill the roles given to you with good people, people who love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeLeggedLion Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 People seem to keep drawing lines between people being in the military and rdrinking being more respnsible 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. Just stop arguing, you're right. If society feels you're responsible enough to make the decision to join the military, they should also feel you're responsible enough to make the decision to drink and be responsible while doing it. If I'm 17 and can be tried as an adult for murder, then tell me why I'm an adult when I want to murder someone, but not when I want to drink or smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimHams Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Theres nothing wrong with alcohol at an early age. My parents are kinda old fashioned but i was offered beer by my dad at the age of 12/13, he knows i'm going to get wasted anyway and its not the end of the world. I think as long as you dont become ridiculous with it its fine, as long as its a social thing like when you're at a party or with some mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTear Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 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. Concepts like "judgement impairing" and "brain altering" just aren't getting through to you are they? It doesn't matter how much I trust the person, regardless of age, when they are sober. When under the influence of alcohol, they will not act the same way they would have when sober. Assumption, many people under the age of 21 are mature in how they drink. Living in a country were the drinking age is 18, I find that statement fairly laughable. Add to that the fact that physiologically (that's me fixing the typo) has more to do with the growth state of their bodies than anything else. 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. ... despite the typo, physiology and psychology is pretty far apart. Unless you're going to make a really interesting argument about the effects of combat? -This message was deviously brought to you by: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 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. Concepts like "judgement impairing" and "brain altering" just aren't getting through to you are they? It doesn't matter how much I trust the person, regardless of age, when they are sober. When under the influence of alcohol, they will not act the same way they would have when sober. That doesn't matter, your still not trusting them to drink responsibly. This part of the argument has nothing to do with the effects. It's the principle, your assuming people will not drink responsibly. Then at the same time assuming the same people will handle a career in killing people responsibly. These effects are not always harmful, they are not always judgement impairing to a huge degree, or even a slight degree. Assumption, many people under the age of 21 are mature in how they drink. Living in a country were the drinking age is 18, I find that statement fairly laughable. Add to that the fact that physiologically (that's me fixing the typo) has more to do with the growth state of their bodies than anything else. Growing is different in every human being. Most girls stop growing at 16-18, while most guys stop a little later. But it is still different. Are you saying girls that are 18 should have a different drinking age, because thats the average? Where I live, the majority of people are pretty sensible when it comes to drinking (Ages 17-20). Thats not to say none of them drink to much, but the mostly everyone drinks to have a good time, and not much else. 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. ... despite the typo, physiology and psychology is pretty far apart. Unless you're going to make a really interesting argument about the effects of combat? Sorry for the typo, i did mean psychologically. I don't think you could contest the risk of seeing people murderer in all sorts of ways is less damaging than drinking. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbellz Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 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. Concepts like "judgement impairing" and "brain altering" just aren't getting through to you are they? It doesn't matter how much I trust the person, regardless of age, when they are sober. When under the influence of alcohol, they will not act the same way they would have when sober. That doesn't matter, your still not trusting them to drink responsibly. This part of the argument has nothing to do with the effects. It's the principle, your assuming people will not drink responsibly. Then at the same time assuming the same people will handle a career in killing people responsibly. These effects are not always harmful, they are not always judgement impairing to a huge degree, or even a slight degree. In my opinion, age doesn't matter when it comes to drinking. It's about responsibility and maturity of the person. Hypothetically, you can give a beer to a drug attic at age 21, but you can't give one to a 16 year old kid who has outstanding grades, and is a boyscout. Odd, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 In Europe most people live by the philosophy of starting breaking people into the effects of alcohol early on. As in like 8 or 9 with a little wine while eating. Stops people from going over the top when they are allowed to buy alcohol. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now