Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/7/08 02:10 AM, poxpower wrote: Yes, I GET IT, that's why I'm telling you it's stupid to ask for them to FIRST stop thinking it's a forbidden fruit to THEN lower the age, if your entire argument is that it's a "forbidden fruit" BECAUSE of the restriction.

How do you intend such a loosening of the restriction have the intended effects if you don't first have the culture in place to embrace such a law?

So basically your parents were breaking the law and you think that's great that the only way for people to ever learn about something before it's legalized is to break the law.

Broke the law HOW? They had a "who cares" attitude about the whole situation, so the temptation of drinking was removed. I was raised in an environment similar to the one's most of the people on this board have wet dreams about when they think of alcohol culture in european countries, and you're telling me I'm wrong for having been brought up that way?

You are bat shit insane pox.

Yes indeed. They're hella stupid for believing that bullshit, but it's a separate field of mind than drinking.

Except, you generalized these people on the whole, not just on religious beliefs which runs counter the whole "cut from the same cloth" argument you just put forth.

At 5/7/08 04:08 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Convince me that the government SHOULDN'T force you to become a Christian.

So by sidestepping my point and resorting to Pox's stupid argumentitive strategy, you are conceding that you have no logical or well thought out arguments to convince the average individual that yours is the correct viewpoint.

My point is that you just made a completely irrelevent point. If Cirrohsis happens at old age, using it as evidence that minors shouldn't drink is completely bullshit.

By lowering the age of consumption you are lowering the age that people start in the addiction of alcoholism, and thereby lower the average age at which they die of cirrohsis.

I bet that thought NEVER crossed your mind while you were "shredding" my argument, now did it?

And nearly 100 percent of proponents of womans sufferage had vaginas. Your point?

My point is that this issue doesn't stand a chance of ever making it past being debate fodder on the internet, and that it's only supporters are U.S. Minors and Canadians who have nothing better to do than sit around and bitch about how much they dislike America and it's polcies.

At 5/8/08 10:27 PM, Proteas wrote:

How do you intend such a loosening of the restriction have the intended effects if you don't first have the culture in place to embrace such a law?

How do you intend the culture to set itself in place if you don't loosen the restriction first?

See what I mean? Chicken and the egg.

Broke the law HOW?

Isn't it illegal to buy liquor for minors/ serve alcohol to minors?
It's impossible to enforce in a home, but clearly the point of banning 18-21 year old from buying alcohol is that they can't drink it.

They had a "who cares" attitude about the whole situation, so the temptation of drinking was removed.

Same with my parents.

I was raised in an environment similar to the one's most of the people on this board have wet dreams about when they think of alcohol culture in european countries, and you're telling me I'm wrong for having been brought up that way?

I don't think anyone here was raised in some evil house where the parents would kill them for drinking a beer.
It's not in the home that it pisses me off, it's just from traveling in the U.S. and not being able to drink or going out with friends and not being able to drink.

I'm 23. I have no possible advantage to gain from legalizing alcohol for people 18+. But I remember how it pissed me off that I could drink all I want in Canada for 3 years but not in the U.S.

Except, you generalized these people on the whole, not just on religious beliefs which runs counter the whole "cut from the same cloth" argument you just put forth.

Religious people are notorious for trying to take away other people's freedom.

At 5/7/08 04:08 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

So by sidestepping my point and resorting to Pox's stupid argumentitive strategy, you are conceding that you have no logical or well thought out arguments to convince the average individual that yours is the correct viewpoint.

You just don't get it.
Well I hope one day someone in your county or city or state makes a crazy bullshit law and you're facing the same logic.

My point is that this issue doesn't stand a chance of ever making it past being debate fodder on the internet, and that it's only supporters are U.S. Minors and Canadians who have nothing better to do than sit around and bitch about how much they dislike America and it's polcies.

My point is that women suffrage doesn't stand a chance of ever making it past being debate fodder in the gazette, and that its only supporters are baren women and bad housewives who have nothing better to do than sit around and bitch about how much they'd love to vote on things they know nothing about instead of cooking.

In fact I don't see any good argument you could make for women being able to vote! They're less educated than us men, they don't work jobs, they don't drive. They know nothing about science, the economy and they base their judgment on emotions rather than logic. I know they can vote in some other countries but here, we have a different culture. You see, here our women are stupid and don't care about voting. There, they do care bout voting, so that's why they can vote.

HONK
HONK

At 5/9/08 12:31 AM, poxpower wrote: Chicken and the Egg

Fair enough.

Isn't it illegal to buy liquor for minors/ serve alcohol to minors?

Who said anything about serving it to minors? I jut said I had access to it, I said nothing about actually imbibing.

It's not in the home that it pisses me off, it's just from traveling in the U.S. and not being able to drink or going out with friends and not being able to drink.

Here's a thought.... don't travel in the U.S.. Problem solved.

Religious people are notorious for trying to take away other people's freedom.

And liberals aren't?

You just don't get it.

I'm not asking you to bend over backwards and suck yourself off, pox, all I want is a rational and well thought out argument as to why the age should be lowered and how it would benefit society on the whole. And thus far, you haven't been able to do so, neither has cuppa, neither has musician, in fact... none you have.

And that's really pathetic.

HONK
HONK

.... did you really just compare women's suffrage in the 20's to the ability to buy alcohol?

Since when does you're inability to buy a beer at 18 even BEGIN to compare with having zero rights at all?

At 5/9/08 02:57 PM, Proteas wrote:

Who said anything about serving it to minors? I jut said I had access to it, I said nothing about actually imbibing.

So somehow you learned how to moderate your intake without ever drinking any?
That doesn't sound like moderation :o
From South Park, one thing that actually was pretty clever: "It easy to do all or nothing, but it takes real courage to be able to do something in moderation" or something along those lines.

Here's a thought.... don't travel in the U.S.. Problem solved.

Well that doesn't sound good for tourism.
Besides Canada is fucking gay. There's nothing here.

And liberals aren't?

Maybe.

and how it would benefit society on the whole.

How about: more freedom?
Like I said, it's the only argument. Freedom. Why shouldn't everyone be banned from drinking it? Freedom.
The argument for setting the age: if you're an adult about everything at 18, then so it should be for alcohol. You can't have it both ways. There's no argument for the discrepency of the ages, it's just insane.
Raise it all to 21 for all I care if you think americans are too stupid to be adult at 18, but don't mix and match tons of shit like that. Or at least allow every state to set an age for 18+, since they can set something like the age of sexual consent.
I mean, think about it, in some state you're jailed for life for fucking a 14 year old girl, and in the next it's A-Ok. That sounds pretty damn crazy.

Since when does you're inability to buy a beer at 18 even BEGIN to compare with having zero rights at all?

An 18 year old has 0 right to buy alcohol compared to a 21 year old. Sounds crazy for a comparison, but just try and argument yourself out of it and you'll see why you're asking for arguments that don't exist and that don't really prove anything.

The basis is freedom. Women probably are worse voters overall than men. So? They're still free to vote. I'm almost certain that if women couldn't vote, you'd get "better" results overall. How is that not great for everyone?
So yeah, obviously 18 year olds are probably not as good drinkers as 21 years old and obviously no one over 21 benefits from having them drink, just like no one who's not a woman benefits from women voting.

It's just the principle of it. If you're going to make a society, you should have it make sense and it makes no sense to push alcohol back 3 years for reasons that amount to fear, basically.

At 5/9/08 06:19 PM, poxpower wrote: So somehow you learned how to moderate your intake without ever drinking any?

The "forbidden fruit" factor was removed, thereby killing any desire to drink (much less in excess). On the occasion I do drink, I do so in moderation to maintain a buzz NOT because I have a desire to get thoroughly piss drunk, which is a model of behavior I learned from my parents.

Now that we've hammered out the details about my upbringing and personal habits, let's turn the discussion to you, pox; what exactly do YOU do with a 12 pack of beer, hm? Slam it? How we're you raised with regards to alcohol?

Well that doesn't sound good for tourism.

I'm sure we'll be crippled for decades to come, and may never recover.

An 18 year old has 0 right to buy alcohol compared to a 21 year old.

That's not the comparison you just made. 18 year old; has zero rights when it comes to alcohol, Women in the 1920's; no civil rights at all. That's like comparing a jovial punch in the arm from a friend to having Mike Tyson knock your teeth down your throat, they're both punches but that's about where the similarities END.

It's just the principle of it. If you're going to make a society, you should have it make sense and it makes no sense to push alcohol back 3 years for reasons that amount to fear, basically.

If the fear is that these 18 year olds will turn around and make a straw man purchase of beer for their underage friends who are still in High School, then it's a justified fear. Holding until 21 removes the individual from the social age group of those in the public school system and makes it that much more difficult for those individuals to get access to alcohol.

Also, there's the issue of underage alcoholism, which you have NEVER ADDRESSED ONCE since it was brought up.

At 5/9/08 06:39 PM, Proteas wrote:

The "forbidden fruit" factor was removed, thereby killing any desire to drink (much less in excess).

That's different for everyone. My entire family is loose about alcohol but I drink like a muthafukah.

NOT because I have a desire to get thoroughly piss drunk, which is a model of behavior I learned from my parents.

The problem isn't getting piss-drunk, it's being a moron at the base.
Driving while drunk = holy shit you asshole. Like, I rode a bike home while drunk once, but if I make a mistake, I die, not some innocent family.
And the other big one is breaking public property. Some people are really stupid violent drunkards but I guess you could blame sports teams as much as alcohol for their stupidity.
Oh and the kids who just ultra-dare each other to drink like a litre of vodka. Or to do flaming shots. But that's just general male retardation for ya.

Other than that, being drunk rules.

Now that we've hammered out the details about my upbringing and personal habits, let's turn the discussion to you, pox; what exactly do YOU do with a 12 pack of beer, hm? Slam it? How we're you raised with regards to alcohol?

Yeah I'd try to drink all the beers.
I drink until I can't drink anymore without knowing I will puke. That's why you have to be careful with liquor, because you can drink it way faster than your body has time to send back the "holy shit don't drink anymore" signal and then you can just black out and puke your brains out.

But hey it's part of the fun of life. I don't regret a single time I've been sick with alcohol. It's like snowboarding. People who snowboard probably are some of the highest risk morons out there, constantly breaking arm bones and twisting their joints and all that. But I hear it's fun, so whatever, they can do what they want.

That's not the comparison you just made. 18 year old; has zero rights when it comes to alcohol, Women in the 1920's; no civil rights at all.

Just pretend it's for voting only. It's hypothetical.

If the fear is that these 18 year olds will turn around and make a straw man purchase of beer for their underage friends who are still in High School, then it's a justified fear.

Ok I see what you mean, kid leaves high school and for some reason is friends with.. the year of kids before... wait.. no.
When does that ever happen? If you have an older brother, I can see it, but usually high school kids are just friends with other kids in their year unless it's their neighbors or some shit.

But you can't correct for brothers and neighbors and people you might have known in daycare 14 years before that.

Also, there's the issue of underage alcoholism, which you have NEVER ADDRESSED ONCE since it was brought up.

Maybe their parents are pussies who don't beat the shit out them enough?
Did you see how parents let their kids dress these days? Fucking 8 year old kids in tank tops. What the hell? Parents organizing dances and parties for 12 year old kids. Completely retarded.
But anyways, teenagers always have and always will try to do adults things.
There's no such problem as you describe in places where we can drink at 18 and your only argument is that the culture is different but like I said, Canadians, Autralians, english europeans, germans : pretty much same kind of drinking culture.

At 5/9/08 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Other than that, being drunk rules.

I thought as much; a perfect role model for generations to come.

Just pretend it's for voting only. It's hypothetical.

Hypothetical how? You're comparing the so called "plight" of a small percentage of the population far too apathetic to vote to begin with to the actual plight of an entire generation of women who had no rights at all. It doesn't even begin to compare.

But you can't correct for brothers and neighbors and people you might have known in daycare 14 years before that.

Then why is Straw Man purchasing illegal?

There's no such problem as you describe in places where we can drink at 18 and your only argument is that the culture is different but like I said, Canadians, Autralians, english europeans, germans : pretty much same kind of drinking culture.

And you're argument is to apply a law based on the culture of those countries to a country that does not share said culture. To further drive this point home, let me remind everyone that you just admitted yourself that there isn't enough responsible parental involvement in the upbringing of children to honestly expect such a culture to arise.

In essence, you don't honestly believe the argument you're putting forth.

At 5/9/08 09:36 PM, Proteas wrote:

I thought as much; a perfect role model for generations to come.

Well you're religious, which is pretty damn bad.
p.s. "Judge not lest yea be judged"?
You just got one hell airmile :O

Hypothetical how? You're comparing the so called "plight" of a small percentage of the population far too apathetic to vote to begin with to the actual plight of an entire generation of women who had no rights at all. It doesn't even begin to compare.

Still haven't tried to argue for the women in that scenario. I'd love to hear your arguments instead of your analysis of my analogies.

Then why is Straw Man purchasing illegal?

Because some idiot thought he could actually enforce that rule?

And you're argument is to apply a law based on the culture of those countries to a country that does not share said culture.

How isn't it the same? So far the only difference you've brought is "the drinking age is 21 so that's why our culture is different" which is completely circular logic.

To further drive this point home, let me remind everyone that you just admitted yourself that there isn't enough responsible parental involvement in the upbringing of children to honestly expect such a culture to arise.

To arise ANYWHERE ON EARTH. Parents in canada are no more responsible.

At 5/9/08 10:25 PM, poxpower wrote: You just got one hell airmile :O

Then I shall see you in Hell.

Still haven't tried to argue for the women in that scenario. I'd love to hear your arguments instead of your analysis of my analogies.

You're analogy is CRAP and if Susan B. Anthony were here today she'd tell you so herself.

And for the last time I am not arguing you're points for you, you lazy bastard.

Because some idiot thought he could actually enforce that rule?

Because buying something for someone who has no legal right to do so is inherently a BAD thing?

How isn't it the same? So far the only difference you've brought is "the drinking age is 21 so that's why our culture is different" which is completely circular logic.

We don't have the same lassie fair attitude towards alcohol that other countries do, pox, and you know it, otherwise this would be a NON ISSUE AND THE AGE WOULD BE LOWERED.

Parents in canada are no more responsible.

Well that's real comforting to know.

At 5/9/08 10:42 PM, Proteas wrote:

And for the last time I am not arguing you're points for you, you lazy bastard.

Prove at least you're not asking for impossible arguments to be delivered.
By doing what I asked you to.
Which you can't seem to do. At all. And use a lame excuse to boot. Plus, if you're saying "I'm not arguing your points for you" about, say, the chocolate example.
Again: assuming chocolate was banned for anyone 21 and over, what arguments could you bring to say "it should be legalized for people 18 and up instead"?
Bring it on.

Or are you too stupid to give arguments on legalizing chocolate? Man you'd have to be pretty stupid, right?

Because buying something for someone who has no legal right to do so is inherently a BAD thing?

I'm saying it's a rule that isn't possible to enforce hence it's existence is meaningless.
Like "no suicide". Or "don't escape from prison". Wow, great rules.

We don't have the same lassie fair attitude towards alcohol that other countries do, pox, and you know it, otherwise this would be a NON ISSUE AND THE AGE WOULD BE LOWERED.

No, I DON'T know it. What I know is that you're under this impression that somehow americans and canadians, who drink the same kind of alcohol, watch the same tv shows, like the same music, go to the same kind of schools to learn the same kind of things, speak the exact same language, have the same moral/ethical rules,are legally adults at the same age, have the same school system, similar laws etc. etc. somehow are MASSIVELY culturally different in regards to alcohol.

There's nothing more like a Canadian than an american. Nothing. You couldn't possibly dream of telling the average american appart from the average canadian :O
I've met a SHITLOAD of both and there's no difference that I can see in regards to ANYTHING.

There's nothing more like a Canadian than an american.

Like the French, the canadians wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone but themselves, ever.

History proves this.

At 5/9/08 11:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Or are you too stupid to give arguments on legalizing chocolate? Man you'd have to be pretty stupid, right?

You're the one who's trying to get someone else to argue a point you yourself won't even bother arguing, pox. If you're not going to waste your time arguing it, why should I?

.... on reading Pox's last post through a second time, something has occurred to me.

I'm asking him to argue for something he knows damn well he has no logical argument for beyond the age consistency deal. He has no argument, he has nothing to go with, and he's knows it, that's why he's been trying to get me to argue the chocolate and women's suffrage thing for him to illustrate the fact that he has no substantial point in this argument.

At 5/10/08 01:17 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're the one who's trying to get someone else to argue a point you yourself won't even bother arguing, pox. If you're not going to waste your time arguing it, why should I?

Are you a baby?
I know there are no such arguments, but you don't want to admit it.

You entire argument stance is completely backwards and insane.

First off you're like "ok well you can't lower it to 18 because it's at 21 and so it's special since it's at 21" which is circular logic at it's finest since the 21 age is artificially imposed and has nothing to do with the speciality of alcohol.

Then you're asking for arguments that don't exist for ANYTHING, chocolate, chips, apples, smokes, sports cars, metal reybar. Nothing. If something was banned from 21 down, according to your insane logic, there are no arguments anywhere on earth AT ALL to justify lowering it down to 18. You're making an "unfalsifiable" proposition and you think it's a great argument.
That's a logical deathtrap. It's what I'm trying to show you. And you think I'm somehow trying to con you into making my points for me?

Never in a trillion years could you find any such arguments, just admit it. You logic is bonkers and is based entirely on habits. If alcohol was 20 and under, you'd defend the 20 age just the same, if it was 30, 25, 60, banned, you'd defend it all with the exact same logic.

At 5/10/08 01:49 PM, poxpower wrote: I know there are no such arguments, but you don't want to admit it.

I just realized the point you were trying to get across pox and evens aid so, are that illiterate?

At 5/10/08 02:16 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/10/08 01:49 PM, poxpower wrote: I know there are no such arguments, but you don't want to admit it.

I just realized the point you were trying to get across pox and evens aid so, are that illiterate?

That wasn't posted when I started typing up that reply ( look at time stamps ).

And your argument, "proof a negative" a logical fallacy just like "well see, you can't prove there is no God! HA, I REST MY CASE!".

Following your logic, the status quo COULD NEVER CHANGE, EVER. It would apply to every social change that has ever occurred, from small to big, that doesn't directly benefit the majority of the population.

At 5/10/08 02:27 PM, poxpower wrote: And your argument, "proof a negative" a logical fallacy just like "well see, you can't prove there is no God! HA, I REST MY CASE!".

Except, here's the thing; I'm not asking you to prove the existence or nonexistence of a God or God's, I'm asking you to put forth a logical and well thought out argument as to why the age should be lowered. The only thing you have going for you thus far is that it is inconsistent with the age of consent for everything else, and I'm willing to admit that it is, but beyond that you have no argument and have been pretty much arguing that you don't have an argument for the last few pages (which is kind of weird if you ask me).

I mean, screw my points, if you can't put forth a well thought out argument and cite how beneficial such a change would be to society, how do expect people to rally around you to help make the change? Because it's going to take a LOT more than "OMG THE GUFFAMENT AIN'T FAIR!!!" to get people to care.

18 works great here in Britain. We've never had anyone complain and I think the only reason the age is 21 in America is because the Government is still ashamed of Prohibition. Take it down to 18!

At 5/10/08 04:11 PM, Proteas wrote: I mean, screw my points, if you can't put forth a well thought out argument and cite how beneficial such a change would be to society, how do expect people to rally around you to help make the change?

Well maybe you have a skewed view on what is "beneficial" to society.
For instance, would someone who never ever drinks automatically have a leg up on someone who's just the same but drinks wine or beer every day and gets drunk occasionally?

To understand why alcohol is banned, I think you have to look at history. When it was banned in america, the religious people were in power and to them, drinking was a sin. It was sinful to do it, and seeing as the majority of the U.S. at that time was of the same religion, lawmakers banned it. But humans like alcohol. It was just too much to ask that they stop drinking it so they turned to crime to get it.
And so they had to legalize it as little at possible.

So the reason why it's so high has nothing to do with anything BUT religion and tradition at this point. You've self-inflicted a culture where people think it's a great adult privilege to get to drink when in fact it's not that great. Neither is smoking pot.
What SHOULD be restricted are ADDICTIVE things. I don't find alcohol addictive to the point where it damages you. You can drink 1-2 beers a day without any problem at all. Cigarettes on the other hand are addictive ( so they say ) and hard drugs like coke, heroine, meth etc.
It comes to a point where it's no longer a good time and where people fuck up their lives.

But alcohol is completely different, it's a great social drink, it's got a lot of history behind it. We're seeing tons and tons of new high-quality beers and wine sprout in america and I think it's a damn shame that LEGAL ADULTS can't get a sip at a restaurant or a bar.

And I know that if the age drops, you will see a rise in deaths for a couple years. But so what? That's price of being a fucking dumbass.

You know what should be legal later? Driving. 16 is way too low for a kid to drive. WAY too low. Driving should be made into a MUCH, MUCH bigger deal in america, but it's not in the culture. Driving has always been this "great social thing" that high school seniors get to do and getting your first car is this whole mystique, but it's a mistake to put a kid being a car, as it would be to put a kid behind a vote or a gun.

But a couple beers? Please. That's fear-mongering. There's always ALWAYS going to be those who abuse their freedom and I don't see why 99.99% of the population should have to suffer for it.

Quite frankly, alcohol should probably not even have an age limit to it. People should stop with the scary stories and just admit it: alcohol is a damn good time if you know how to limit yourself. The whole "SWEET, FINALLY LEGAL" mentality just makes people who have 0 experience with alcohol do really stupid dares and end up drinking too much and dying from overdose. And that goes for Canada as well. Excessive binge-drinking has become a problem because of the whole jackass/date mentality out there.

Is more banning the solution? Yes of course, it's a solution. It probably works. But is it the best choice a society can make, to ban something as soon as a couple people abuse it? I doubt it. Kids should SERIOUSLY be taught IN SCHOOL how much alcohol is LETHAL. It would rule if we had things like beer-tasting and wine-tasting in shools as a way to inform kids about alcohol and to make them appreciate this great product as more than a tool to dare each other to do stupid shit.

At 5/10/08 07:05 PM, poxpower wrote: You've self-inflicted a culture where people think it's a great adult privilege to get to drink when in fact it's not that great.

Weren't you the one a little while ago saying that said culture doesn't exist?

I don't find alcohol addictive to the point where it damages you.

Then I would say that your viewpoint of alcohol is skewed, as Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders clearly states that Alcoholism is a disease that is characterized by physical and mental dependance on the substance, just like with any illicit drug. They also go on to back up the aformentioned study about underage alcoholism, as well as a plethora of other things.

Now while you personally don't find it that addicting, others certainly do. Clicky.

But alcohol is completely different, it's a great social drink, it's got a lot of history behind it.

So we go from alcohol being illegal because of religious tradition to lowering the age because of the tradition of alcohol. Interesting.

And I know that if the age drops, you will see a rise in deaths for a couple years. But so what? That's price of being a fucking dumbass.

So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can have beer at 18?

Well, I can sleep restful tonight knowing you'll never win the Nobel Price for Humanitarian Efforts.

There's always ALWAYS going to be those who abuse their freedom and I don't see why 99.99% of the population should have to suffer for it.

And if this were a topic about Gun Control, your stance would probably be a complete 180 degree turn from this; limit it for everyone because a small segment of the population decided to ruin it for us all.

yeah so what. In some countrys you can have sex at 14 or 16 and if that became the law then Id give a crap.

At 5/10/08 08:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

Weren't you the one a little while ago saying that said culture doesn't exist?

It doesn't exist solely in the USA, which is like your whole point.

Alcoholism is a disease

buuuuuuuullshit.
I don't care how many of those morons think it's a "disease".
p.s. are those the same bunch of assholes who make up diseases like "attention deficit disorder" and order people to go to "anger management" classes?

that is characterized by physical and mental dependance on the substance

I'm pretty sure meat is about as addictive.

just like with any illicit drug.

Like caffeine and sugar? Or like guarana, ginseng and taurine? Oh wait those aren't illegal.
Yet.
Well let's outlaw caffeine then. You heard them!

They also go on to back up the aformentioned study about underage alcoholism

oh that's bullshit.
http://mens-health.health-cares.net/alco holism-causes.php

So we go from alcohol being illegal because of religious tradition to lowering the age because of the tradition of alcohol. Interesting.

The tradition of FREEDOM and being able to do as we damn well please within a set boundaries without some uptight droning religious dickwads and menoposal Oprah viewers trying to impose their skewed moral views on others.

So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can have beer at 18?

So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can drive?
So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can have pools in their backyards?
So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can go on fishing trips?
So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can go to the shooting range?
So you would sacrifice the lives of innocents so that people can own a jetskit?

What? Oh that's right, you still don't understand that you have a non-argument.

And if this were a topic about Gun Control, your stance would probably be a complete 180 degree turn from this; limit it for everyone because a small segment of the population decided to ruin it for us all.

What? I don't own a gun, never shot one, don't hunt, don't plan to ever hunt. But you know what? I learned that it's none of my damn business if some redneck wants to go shoot poor animals in the woods. Even though I'm against hunting and fishing and think it's cruel, it's not my damn business to impose bans through laws on people who are usually pretty stupid. I think it's appalling that people would go out in the woods with THEIR KIDS and guns to gun down some poor animal JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT.

And you know what? It could be that one day, some shithead will come into my house and shoot me with his legally-purchased shotgun under the influence of his legally-purchased scotch AND I'M FINE WITH THAT.

That knowledge is the price I pay for my FREEDOM.
Since you're so big on encroaching on that, why don't you try to push a ban on cars? Cars kill millions of people every year. Probably tons of those being good, lawful citizens. Wow I GUESS YOU'RE ALRIGHT WITH THAT OMG LOOK AT MY GREAT ARGUMENT.

What? I don't own a gun, never shot one, don't hunt, don't plan to ever hunt. But you know what? I learned that it's none of my damn business if some redneck wants to go shoot poor animals in the woods.

What I read:

"I hold bigoted opinions about non-artists because I'm an ignorant asshole to the big picture."

You've got points, pox, don't get me wrong. I've argued in favor of an 16-18 legal age many a time, usually with the same arguments you've sophomorically wielded.

But we've had varied age restrictions, state-by-state, in the past. It's beneficial to have a federal age restriction, whatever that age may be. It's also beneficial to weigh the positives and negatives of each argument.

You aren't very good at weighing stuff.

At 5/10/08 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

"I hold bigoted opinions about non-artists because I'm an ignorant asshole to the big picture."

non-artists?
haha what the hell? I would have understood "religious" or something, but non-artist?

How on earth could I even tell if someone was an artist?

You aren't very good at weighing stuff.

Well I'm trying to understand the whole argument branch here.

Now where does the age restriction come from? Obviously because we, as a society, believe there should be an age at which people are treated as adults. What age should that be? Why not 17 or 19? Why 18?
Why can you drive a car, possibly the deadliest thing ever built far behind guns and bombs, at 16? What's the point of letting people smoke at 18 instead of 21?

Try and find the definitive arguments for THAT.

At 5/10/08 10:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/10/08 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

"I hold bigoted opinions about non-artists because I'm an ignorant asshole to the big picture."

non-artists?

Yeah, it's what I heard. Seriously. I didn't stutter, it's right back there where I first typed it. No seriously, check it out, it's there, I swear it is.

Honest.

How on earth could I even tell if someone was an artist?

You can't, that's why you're a bigoted, ignorant asshole.

You aren't very good at weighing stuff.

Well I'm trying to understand the whole argument branch here.

No you aren't, you're acting like a faggot.

At 5/10/08 10:56 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

No you aren't, you're acting like a faggot.

You do realize that based on that last reply, I could easily ban you and be completely justified?
It offered no arguments and was simply just insults.

But I'm nice
<3

Pox if you do deny the validity of Alcoholism then you commit the only 1 true sin of your religion, denying the validity of a scientifically accepted concept for your own agenda.

To provide reasoning for the banning of caffeine, you need to prove that caffeine related deaths by minors is higher than that of alcohol, or higher than that of something which is also banned that was [prior to it being banned] also causing deaths.

Caffeine addiction is also real, infact, anyone can become addicted to any drug. It's typically when that drug becomes such a problem that people start making demands. One of the things that makes Alcohol such a deadly drug is that it is so accessible. But once again, how bad is caffeine addiction, and how much good is done when the money is put into keeping people from intaking it?

Like i said, if our government became more nihilist and used execution as a means to punish individuals who were alcoholics or drove drunk, i would have no problem with 0 regulation for any drug of any kind... the problem is that that will never happen.

At 5/10/08 10:10 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't care how many of those morons think it's a "disease".

You know what just did by saying that?

In addition to being just as (if not worse than) bigoted as any fundamentalist religious I've ever met, you just revealed to the whole BBS that you also are prone to wholesale writing off of viewpoints and opinions that don't fit in with your own views, no matter how credible they are.

So tell me, which do you prefer to go to when you have the flu; faith healers, witch doctors, or are you the type to go out in the woods with a shovel and see what kind of roots you can find?

The tradition of FREEDOM and being able to do as we damn well please within a set boundaries without some uptight droning religious dickwads and menoposal Oprah viewers trying to impose their skewed moral views on others.

There are ALWAYS going to be uptight droning religious dickwads and menoposal Oprah viewers trying to impose their skewed moral views on others, they've been here since the founding of this country and have no signs of going away. Get real and get over yourself.

Since you're so big on encroaching on that, why don't you try to push a ban on cars? Cars kill millions of people every year. Probably tons of those being good, lawful citizens. Wow I GUESS YOU'RE ALRIGHT WITH THAT OMG LOOK AT MY GREAT ARGUMENT.

Actually, I am alright with it, and have argued that point several times during the course of past gun control debates on here.

At 5/10/08 11:22 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Pox if you do deny the validity of Alcoholism then you commit the only 1 true sin of your religion, denying the validity of a scientifically accepted concept for your own agenda.

I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to so-called mental diseases, and ESPECIALLY when they deal with something that is fun.
Everything that is fun is addictive. While I don't deny that alcoholism exists, I doubt it is a real "sickness". A sickness is something you have no control over and need either medication or surgery to overcome.

You can overcome the "disease" of alcoholism through sheer will-power.
Does that sound so damn bad? It's clear that some people are much more prone to addictive BEHAVIOR, be it with smoking, drinking, eating, playing WoW. But to call this a "disease" is really a load of bullshit IMO, EVEN if there is a genetic predisposition for someone to be obese or alcoholic.

p.s. There's is a blurry line between what constitutes a real physical addiction from a drug and a light "habit" type addiction. Apparently quitting heroine gives you some really bad shakes or fever or whatever, but I never tried so I wouldn't know if that's just Hollywood bullshit.

To provide reasoning for the banning of caffeine

I'm just saying it addictive and a drug. Pot hasn't ever killed anyone either as far as I know. So. Whatever.

One of the things that makes Alcohol such a deadly drug is that it is so accessible.

It's just more powerful. It's easier to drink too much alcohol than coffee. But the long-term effects of drinking coffee are probably worse than the long-term effects of drinking 2-3 beers a day.
Alcohol is scary because it's EXPLOSIVE. Suddenly a person who was normal an hour ago is a drooling idiot who steps over his shoes.
But hey that's fun.

Like i said, if our government became more nihilist and used execution as a means to punish individuals who were alcoholics or drove drunk,

That's pretty horrible.
Plus they kill themselves. Too bad they take others with them. Assholes.

At 5/10/08 11:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

So tell me, which do you prefer to go to when you have the flu; faith healers, witch doctors, or are you the type to go out in the woods with a shovel and see what kind of roots you can find?

PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME WITH MY BACON ADDICTION, DEAR LORD THIS BACON ADDICTION IS KILLING ME, I DON'T HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO OVERCOME MY PHYSICAL BACON ADDICTION, SOMEONE SELL ME A PROGRAM OR SOME PILLS, QUICK!

There are ALWAYS going to be uptight droning religious dickwads and menoposal Oprah viewers trying to impose their skewed moral views on others, they've been here since the founding of this country and have no signs of going away.

So let's stop listening to them.

Actually, I am alright with it, and have argued that point several times during the course of past gun control debates on here.

Right that makes sense. You're using the argument against me even though you say it doesn't hold any water when it comes to other things.
Thanks.