I'm against underaged drinking laws. And I personally believe that just because something's against the law that doesn't make it immoral or even that bad. In fact, lets take a good look at the drinking laws in some places. In some places, the drinking law is 21. Personally I think this law is completely moronic because you can join the army by 18. So essentially, what this law tells me is that you're allowed to be trained to kill someone by eighteen, and that you're even allowed to kill someone by eighteen, but you're not allowed to have even one beer. Where I live, New Brunswick, the drinking age is a bit less stupid and it's down to nineteen. You know, an entire year older than what's the legal age to basically kill someone overseas.
I'm well aware that morality and law doesn't always go hand in hand. That's actually irrelevant to the issue at hand. You're saying that because you can join the army and kill enemy soldiers at age 18 or die "for your country" but cannot drink alcohol.
Let's start with the misleading comment, "... you're allowed to be trained to kill someone by eighteen ..." This point is irrelevant and moot. You may be trained to kill someone at any age. There are a plethora of martial arts open to minors that will teach techniques that will kill. Hunting, another sport open to participation by minors, also has skills that translate well. And then your dad may be an ex-ranger and teach you how to kill someone. The latter is open to all ages, without any governmental restriction.
Next: "... that you're even allowed to kill someone by eighteen ..." Yes and no. Soldiers do not have a license to kill unless ordered to do so. Authorization of lethal force is required. Military grunts, therefore, are not simply "allowed to kill" willy nilly. They don't get to make much of a decision who to kill and who not to. Also, one may join the military at 17 with parental permission.
You continue, "... you're not allowed to have even one beer." With this we can boil down your argument in an easily understood form.
1) 18-year-olds can become soldiers.
2) Soldiers can kill at age 18.
3) 18-year-olds are not permitted to drink alcohol.
4) 18-year-olds should be permitted to drink alcohol.It turns out that this argument, as it stands, is completely inane. You have to rely on an
assumption (i.e., a premise that was not included in the argument) to create a valid argument. The assumption requires that anyone who is permitted to kill should also be permitted to consume alcohol. Adding this to the premises would help validate the argument, but you would be far from creating a
sound argument (a valid argument with all true premises and a true conclusion). However, your argument would still suffer from the fact not all 18-year-olds are permitted to kill, so it takes the following form:
1) Some As are Bs.
2) All Bs are C.
3) All As are C.This is a logical fallacy, for obvious reasons. Using a
counter-example we can demonstrate why:
1) Some vegetables are carrots.
2) All carrots are orange or yellow.
3) All vegetables are orange or yellow.So should anyone permitted to kill also be permitted to consume alcohol? You must prove this statement correct before advancing your argument.
Part IIMeanwhile in Quebec, probably the most insulted province in all of Canada, their drinking age is eighteen and their booze is cheaper. But I guess it comes to no surprise that the people doing anything right are the ones that are the most insulted. Afterall, people didn't seem too fond of Socrates.
You still haven't proven that the 18-year-old drinking age is the right thing to do, or even the moral thing to do.
Socrates was killed because he asked too many questions, not because he was right. He was wrong about a number of things. To be quite honest I don't understand these statements at all. They don't prove or establish anything other than some lame reference to Socrates to justify the position that being disliked implies one is correct. Either way, it doesn't work that way.
So there, reason #1 - I personally think our priorities are just a bit fucked up when we're more worried about our kids drinking than handing them a gun and telling them to kill someone. 'for the greater good'
Killing is objectively wrong? Good luck with that one. This is also a fallacy. Just because killing is wrong does not mean underage drinking isn't.
Secondly, isn't it just a bit hypocritical for us to tell them that drinking underaged is wrong? I bet that most of the people preaching to our youth not to drink underage are the exact same people that got high, got drunk, and had their dicks sucked back in high school. I mean, i wouldn't have so much of a problem if they were consistent, but they're not. If anyone should argue against underaged drinking it should be someone that never got high, never drank, and never did anything reckless during their high school years. You know, someone like me.
Seriously though, It's like a child molester telling people to keep their hands off our damn kids. If anyone is going to get on their moral high horse they should at least have the decency to be consistent with the morality they're riding on.
So there, that's my second beautiful argument in purple text - 2. Don't go preaching on what's right and wrong when you essentially did what's wrong in your own moral compass.
This is a very textbook example of ad hominem. I could have 30 DUIs and it would not invalidate any points I make on this issue.
Judging someone's responsibility, intellect, or ability through their age is a form of descrimination. Just because one kid gets behind a wheel and gets drunk that doesn't mean all of them do. And it also doesn't mean adults are exempt from doing stupid shit. Instead of completely illegalizing something for an entire age group (that'll get their hands on that illegal substance anyway) we should instead promote responsibility. When our government tries to do something they always screw it up, so maybe instead of asking a politician to fix a problem we should go to our schools to teach the dangers of the problem.
This is your first point that isn't logically flawed and supported correctly. But reviewing statistical data, we can see how raising the drinking age managed to lower DUI-related deaths. And based on this statistic, congress can pass a statute that states having a legal drinking age lower than 21 will lose a state its federal road funding.
Additionally, schools do advocate these types of programs, but the problem is that drinking is so wide-spread that they've focused not on eliminating drinking, but eliminate drunk driving. And I don't see that culture changing anytime soon.
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 1 2011, 6:03 am by Sacrieur.
None.