Thread Rating:

Poll

16 votes (76.19%)
5 votes (23.8%)

21 members have voted

SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3469
August 31st, 2010 at 5:34:39 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

No, what explains all those 275-pound Marines is the obsolete BELIEF that a chunkier soldier is obviously a better one--a misconception that is behind the fierce resistance to recruiting women soldiers. To repeat myself, it's brains, not brawn, that matters, except perhaps in the rare instance of unarmed hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.



Time to turn on the sarcasm meter.


Quote:

Following military practices, i.e., war, has achieved good ends--for the winners. It has also achieved horrible ends--for both sides. The latter result has been more common than the former. War itself is obsolete, and in a sense, it always has been, in that trade and interaction with one's neighbors has always been a superior strategy.



A sublime blend of hand waving and sophistry embracing some airy notion, thanks to intellectually questionable tactic of trimming what started a specific exchange. In this case, here is the broad paint brush from a self-identified teacher, scholar and historian:
Quote:
The point I was making is that mature people resist the idea that throwing away human lives is the optimal method of conflict resolution; young people just say "booyah" and go paddle around in the testosterone.


Quote:

It is not necessary to have been a soldier to understand what military service is all about, nor does having been a soldier necessarily confer that knowledge. In fact, an "outsider"'s perspective may be more accurate. To use an appropriate analogy, one need not be or have been a baseball player to know all about baseball.



Most "scholars" do not close their minds once they have surveyed all those who agree with them.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1336
  • Posts: 22055
August 31st, 2010 at 5:57:26 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

I don't see, and haven't heard of, swarms of underage gamblers seeking out illicit crap tables and slot machines buried in the basements of pool halls. Gambling isn't appealing for underage kids the way drinking is.



There was plenty of illegal gambling going on in the dorms and apartments of UCSB. You don't need slot machines and crap tables to do it. Just a deck of cards will do. Acey-Deucey was huge in the Santa Rosa dorm at UCSB while I was there.

Quote: mkl654321

I would heartily disagree with the premise that making drinking illegal INCREASES the incidence of drinking. Granted, the prohibition won't reduce that incidence very much, but some number of underage persons--greater than zero--will refrain from drinking because it is illegal.



You're entitled to your opinion. I maintain that prohibition doesn't keep those in the 18-21 age range from getting alcohol. Once they get it, they will be more likely to consume all of it, because they don't want to keep a half-full bottle of vodka around.



Quote: mkl654321

It would be nice if we could rely on the "individual responsibility and moderation" of 18-20 year olds, but that's like relying on the ability of chimpanzees to play the violin. They aren't ABLE to be responsible or moderate--not yet. That is the single strongest argument for restricting certain behaviors on their part.



I think anybody under 21 on this forum would be pretty insulted by that statement. 9 out of 10 seem basically okay to me.

Quote: mkl654321

I do agree that if the individual states can regulate whether gambling exists at all, then they should also set the age limits. It takes a pretty desperate (cash-strapped) and dimwitted state to lower the gambling age to 18, though. Do you REALLY want to bleed teenagers to make up for your past fiscal stupidity?



What past fiscal stupidity are you referring to? I've been a tightwad all my life.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
August 31st, 2010 at 6:10:14 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

There was plenty of illegal gambling going on in the dorms and apartments of UCSB. You don't need slot machines and crap tables to do it. Just a deck of cards will do. Acey-Deucey was huge in the Santa Rosa dorm at UCSB while I was there.



Back in high school some friends and would get together for poker games in one the guys' van, right in the school parking lot. The oldest in the group was 19, the youngest 14. We had a few decks of cards and some plastic chips.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
August 31st, 2010 at 6:11:46 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

There was plenty of illegal gambling going on in the dorms and apartments of UCSB. You don't need slot machines and crap tables to do it. Just a deck of cards will do. Acey-Deucey was huge in the Santa Rosa dorm at UCSB while I was there.
You're entitled to your opinion. I maintain that prohibition doesn't keep those in the 18-21 age range from getting alcohol. Once they get it, they will be more likely to consume all of it, because they don't want to keep a half-full bottle of vodka around.
I think anybody under 21 on this forum would be pretty insulted by that statement. 9 out of 10 seem basically okay to me.
What past fiscal stupidity are you referring to? I've been a tightwad all my life.



We were referring to allowing CASINO gambling. The kind of gambling you are referring to is technically illegal even for adults. I can't see how allowing 18-year-olds into casinos would make them gamble LESS--that seems ludicrous to me.

I never said that prohibiting underage drinking kept minors from drinking. I merely said that the prohibition decreased by some amount the number of minors who drank--at least SOME will be deterred by the fact that they're breaking the law; at least SOME people who might provide them with alcohol are similarly deterred. In any case, as above, I consider it ludicrous that legalizing alcohol consumption by minors would result in a DECREASE in consumption by them--a totally ridiculous idea.

Nobody under 21 should feel insulted. I simply refer to a capability they do not yet have. Behavioral psychology and studies of the physiology and development of the brain have proved this. Actual, empirical observation of the behavior of adolescents has strongly suggested it. Any parent could tell you (pride in their particular sweet booboo notwithstanding) that teenagers do some spectacularly foolhardy things. Pretending otherwise, and giving metaphorical loaded guns to persons who can't handle them, does them no service. I don't doubt that your son or the boy who delivers the paper is a swell kid. I also wouldn't hand him the car keys and a bottle of whiskey on a Saturday night, and tell him, "Come home when you feel like it."
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
August 31st, 2010 at 6:15:02 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard


What past fiscal stupidity are you referring to? I've been a tightwad all my life.



Of states, in that allowing casino gambling is often seen by state governments as a panacea for the financial crises that have resulted from their fiscal incompetence (and allowing minors to gamble would presumably increase the revenue to be gained therefrom).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
August 31st, 2010 at 6:17:36 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Time to turn on the sarcasm meter.
A sublime blend of hand waving and sophistry embracing some airy notion, thanks to intellectually questionable tactic of trimming what started a specific exchange. In this case, here is the broad paint brush from a self-identified teacher, scholar and historian:
Quote:
The point I was making is that mature people resist the idea that throwing away human lives is the optimal method of conflict resolution; young people just say "booyah" and go paddle around in the testosterone.
Most "scholars" do not close their minds once they have surveyed all those who agree with them.



And in what way was anything that I said that you quoted incorrect?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 424
  • Posts: 24199
August 31st, 2010 at 6:17:56 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Nope. I didn't say that those things are the same to me at all.
.



Oh please. You mentioned them in the discussion and now say you didn't mean they're the same. So why mention them at all, then? All you did was confuse the issue.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
August 31st, 2010 at 6:25:48 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Oh please. You mentioned them in the discussion and now say you didn't mean they're the same. So why mention them at all, then? All you did was confuse the issue.



This is what I said:

So I suppose we should repeal laws against all forms of drug use, and for that matter, burglary, rape, kidnaping, and murder? Because "people are going to do what they want", no matter what?

Even you can perceive that I wasn't saying those things were the same. You can't possibly be so thick as not to see that.

I'll state my point again for your benefit: this was a response to your assertion that "people will do what they want", so why try to regulate their behavior? I tried to address the question of "why" by analogy. That apparently whistled right over your head.

I give up. You combine extremism and obtuseness to create an intellectual wall that nothing can penetrate.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
August 31st, 2010 at 7:11:35 PM permalink
Here in Ontario, the drinking age and gambling age is 19. Voting is 18. For me, if you are in college at 18 and are able to vote and go to war, you should be able to pretty do whatever you want at that age and not be held liable simply because you're too young. Dumb.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1336
  • Posts: 22055
August 31st, 2010 at 8:14:36 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

We were referring to allowing CASINO gambling. The kind of gambling you are referring to is technically illegal even for adults. I can't see how allowing 18-year-olds into casinos would make them gamble LESS--that seems ludicrous to me.



You were the one who mentioned underage gambling in general with this comment, "Gambling isn't appealing for underage kids the way drinking is." To me the issue isn't just minimizing gambling. I also value freedom in life to do what you want, as long as you aren't harming anybody else. Furthermore, I don't see Canada and Australia clamoring to increase their gambling age to 21.

Quote: mkl654321

I never said that prohibiting underage drinking kept minors from drinking. I merely said that the prohibition decreased by some amount the number of minors who drank--at least SOME will be deterred by the fact that they're breaking the law; at least SOME people who might provide them with alcohol are similarly deterred. In any case, as above, I consider it ludicrous that legalizing alcohol consumption by minors would result in a DECREASE in consumption by them--a totally ridiculous idea.



I doesn't seem ridiculous to me. For every one person who waits to 21 to drink, there will be 10 who drink more because of forbidden fruit tastes better than legal fruit.

Quote: mkl654321

Nobody under 21 should feel insulted. I simply refer to a capability they do not yet have. Behavioral psychology and studies of the physiology and development of the brain have proved this. Actual, empirical observation of the behavior of adolescents has strongly suggested it. Any parent could tell you (pride in their particular sweet booboo notwithstanding) that teenagers do some spectacularly foolhardy things.



I don't dispute that learning to delay gratification and take only calculated risks take a while to learn. In fact I would say that the young are deliberate risk seekers. That is why they a lot of them drink excessively, because it is risky. Legalize it and you take the fun out of it. However, in the interests of compromise, I wouldn't oppose a Colorado type of law where beer only is legal between the ages of 18 and 21.

Quote: mkl654321

Pretending otherwise, and giving metaphorical loaded guns to persons who can't handle them, does them no service. I don't doubt that your son or the boy who delivers the paper is a swell kid. I also wouldn't hand him the car keys and a bottle of whiskey on a Saturday night, and tell him, "Come home when you feel like it."



There you go with another chimpanzee/murder kind of comparison. I'd tone town the hyperbole; it doesn't become you.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

  • Jump to: