Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AdrenalinDragon

Do you drive a car?

Do you drive a car?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you drive a car?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      6
    • Well... not a car.
      2


Recommended Posts

Age limits are set because we need cutoffs. In a perfect world, a step to the next level would be based on the maturity of the individual. That is the job of parenting. However, in the legal world, you are not allowed to discriminate, so we must require arbitrary standards which are not necessarily relevant to either ability or maturity.

My favorite saying: "You may only be young once, but you can be immature all your life"

Ian

 

Of course. They're still incredibly frustrating though, so I'm glad I'm finally past them all.

 

(especially when they're inconsistent...here, if you're 18, you can go die for your country in a war or go influence its entire future by voting, but you cannot buy a drink or play in a poker game...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. They're still incredibly frustrating though, so I'm glad I'm finally past them all.

 

(especially when they're inconsistent...here, if you're 18, you can go die for your country in a war or go influence its entire future by voting, but you cannot buy a drink or play in a poker game...)

 

Crap that like really ticks me off. It makes no sense that way but welcome to planet Earth; where absolutely nothing makes sense anymore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Age limits are set because we need cutoffs. In a perfect world, a step to the next level would be based on the maturity of the individual. That is the job of parenting. However, in the legal world, you are not allowed to discriminate, so we must require arbitrary standards which are not necessarily relevant to either ability or maturity.

 

Well, it's one thing for the standards to be arbitrary; it's another for them to be completely pointless.

 

 

I can go along with setting 18 as the age at which you can legally buy cigs; I don't agree with that, but I can go along with that. What boggles my mind is that a 16-year-old can't buy cigarettes but CAN be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to death for a crime. You're not mature enough to decide whether or not you want to ruin your lungs, but you ARE mature enough to know right from wrong...that just makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitbuster. I do agree with you. The inconsistency comes because it was different groups that set the different standards. If you really want to change it, then you have to go political. It will take up your lifetime, and in the end, it probably won't be changed anyways. You have to be careful what goals you want to dedicate your life towards.

ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inconsistency comes because it was different groups that set the different standards. If you really want to change it, then you have to go political. It will take up your lifetime, and in the end, it probably won't be changed anyways. You have to be careful what goals you want to dedicate your life towards.

 

Agreed. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if my generation is cynical/apathetic towards politics...as long as we're cynical/apathetic for the right reasons!

 

 

You can't drive until you are 18 but you can fly a plane on your own when you are 16. That really doesn't make sense. :huh:

 

Yikes! Remind me to be careful if I ever book a plane from Scotland. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, I don't care that the earliest age to smoke is 18. In my opinion cigarettes should be phased out entirely and eventually illegalized in favor of human health.

 

Do you protest against everything, Trevor? You should become a politician or something. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should NOT become a politician - he's not nearly good enough at lying.

 

He's just really liberal.

 

Political rant warning - it's in the spoiler. Don't click if you aren't willing to deal with what I've said, and if you don't like it, well, too bad.

 

 

He'd also get shouted down as a hippie communist nazi socialist pig by American conservatives - even though those lines of belief are completely incompatible with each other in so many ways. For the record, I don't believe he's any of those things, but that doesn't stop people from calling people they don't like that. Yes, it's stupid - it's VERY stupid - but that's politics for you.

 

I don't have a problem with conservatives. On the contrary, I'm quite conservative myself. I DO have a problem with the stupid conservative extremists who have been dominating the conservative side of the political spectrum lately and are doing much, much more harm then good all in the name of a political agenda.

 

Mind you, these are the same conservatives who keep calling for us to invade Iran for apparent development of nuclear weapons*. For an idea of how terrible of an idea this is, the Iranian army could field 2,500 battalions, modern tanks and anti-tank weaponry, modern aircraft that they've purchased from Russia and China plus one they've built themselves as well as fast-attack watercraft our navy is not prepared to defend itself against. Oh, and they have 10 million citizens capable of military service who in a pinch they could easily arm and have already been trained due to mandatory conscription. This is in addition to a standing army several hundred thousand strong.

 

This would not be the cake-walk that the initial invasion of Iraq was. Anyone who says it would be easy is either lying or delusional. Sure, we'd win eventually, but it would likely be after several years unless the Iranian generals are 100% incompetent - which the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's demonstrated they are not - and I would not rule 100,000 casualties on our side out of the question - probably several million on theirs. And then we'd have to deal with another insurgency possibly larger than the Iraqi one.

 

To top the delicious war cake off, the United States military has been preparing for the last war - the Iraq war - where they had uncontested control of the sky, numerical superiority and has been primarily preparing for counter-insurgency operations. In fact, the Department of Defense has only very recently (the last few weeks) started actually preparing for a possible war with Iran. If we were to declare war on Iran tomorrow, due to, say, a nuclear weapons test... well, it would not be surprising if it ended up about as well as when the Romans marched into Parthia like they already owned the place expecting to easily win (as they had in their last few wars) and it turned into one of the greatest military disasters ever for the Romans.

 

*Mind you, this weapon development has not been conclusively proven but to be fair a few signs pointing to it ARE there. However, this ignores a few things: Building a nuclear weapon is illegal in Iran. Yes, seriously. So are chemical weapons. Also, the Iranian people have already suffered at the hands of WMDs due to 1980's Iraq using them against Iran and roughly 30,000 of them STILL suffer complications from the chemical weapons used by Iraq in that war. It would be literally amazing if they tolerated their government developing these weapons. With that said, it is indeed possible they are trying to build a nuclear bomb - just exceedingly unlikely (but it wouldn't be the first really unlikely thing to happen).

 

Also, all this noise about "Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and is in violation of it!" as justification for a war - well, we've signed it and are in violation of it too, because we continue to research and build nuclear weapons. Sure, our overall number has decreased markedly from cold war days, but that's because we have greatly increased their accuracy and we don't need 20,000+ to have a hope of actually hitting our targets. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that despite all the saber-rattling and muscle-flexing and how close it's been a few times, the united states remains the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon on another nation - two, no less.

 

And the excuse that nuclear war would be inevitable because "Iran is not a rational actor!" is also terrible, because history has demonstrated repeatedly that they are rational, and in fact, they're more rational then China was in the 1960's when they got their first nuclear weapon and we haven't gotten in a nuclear war with china yet, have we? No? I didn't think so. On the other hand, china has become significantly more sane in the last 50 years and more moderate. So if a nuclear-armed Iran means a more-sane and more moderate Iran, maybe that's not so bad, even at the cost of the regional arms-race that would result.

 

 

Considering the above alone - and that I have not begun to scratch the surface of how big of a clusterfuck that would be - I will simply refuse to vote for any candidate in this next presidential election who thinks a war with Iran is a good idea and is the first thing on the table. So, all of the current republican candidates. I guess I'm voting for Obama, because he's at least trying to keep us out of another major war that we not only cannot afford to fight but one we're not even close to prepared to fight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He shouldn't become a politician for the sole reason that he's very easily offended by anything, and would not resist his opponents' attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He shouldn't become a politician for the sole reason that he's very easily offended by anything, and would not resist his opponents' attacks.

 

He'd be hilarious though. BigOto2 for President! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a long rant about stupid politicians. Also, yes, lol.

 

And on topic...

 

I don't drive a car - it's a truck. I think I said this already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will simply refuse to vote for any candidate in this next presidential election who thinks a war with Iran is a good idea and is the first thing on the table. So, all of the current republican candidates.

 

Not the case for Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the case for Ron Paul.

 

An addendum: Any candidate who actually has a chance that falls somewhere between here and hell of winning.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion cigarettes should be phased out entirely and eventually illegalized in favor of human health.

 

Do you favor outlawing high-sugar and high-fat foods as well? What about cars? Power plants? The sun?

 

(Etc.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High-sugar? No.

 

High-fat? No.

 

Cars? Ultimately I hope gas will be phased out in favor of electricity, but that doesn't mean gasoline engines should be outlawed entirely.

 

Power Plants? This is a bit more extreme, so ultimately and soon I hope that sources of pollution will be phased out in favor of solar, wind, and whatnot.

 

The sun? I believe the sun should be outlawed in favor of artificial light and heat sources all around the world which will allow Earth to sustain itself on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...why do you make an exception for cigs, then? This is coming from somone who despises the scent of cigarette smoke, but I just don't like the idea of the government banning substances (ask me about my stance on drug laws).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they'll ever phase it out to that degree; all the propaganda in the world won't stop some people from smoking.

 

 

(And besides, sort of like the lottery, one can view it as a voluntary tax. That's another reason I favor legalizing drugs; not only would the government stop wasting money on drug enforcement, they could tax the [expletive deleted] out of 'em and come out ahead.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×