OzzyKP in the News

[Wiglaf]

Hey, I'd approve of that if I were American (yeah I know Wiglaf, I'm not, so what's the point? Well, you figure it out.)

I dislike your pissyness just as much as I dislike girly men sitting around saying "Well If I'm old enough to be in the army I'm old enough to drink warble warble." Bull**** to that. The drinking age is where it is for safety reasons, and if military men should be able to drink, it's as a reward for them alone.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I dislike your pissyness just as much as I dislike girly men sitting around saying "Well If I'm old enough to be in the army I'm old enough to drink warble warble." Bull**** to that. The drinking age is where it is for safety reasons, and if military men should be able to drink, it's as a reward for them alone.

Sorry for the pissiness, I'll accept your statement totally. Since I'd like to learn something, could you tell me just how exactly European drinking ages are harming our societies, since I don't suppose you'll argue European youth will reach maturity earlier?

Oh, and just before you reply: I know you'll obviously back up your statements with all sorts of factual information. But please don't blow me away with too much documentation here, no matter how tempting... just keep to the two or three reliable cites that should be enough to prove your points convincingly.

I'll say Fox is reliable, of course.

[Wiglaf]

Motor vehicle deaths due to youth drunk drivers have fallen dramatically since the US raised the drinking age. FACT.

[Wiglaf]

Over 40 percent of all the 16-to-20 year olds who died in 1994 were killed in car crashes, half of which were alcohol-related. The number of intoxicated youth drivers in fatal crashes dropped 14.3 percent from 1983 to 1994 -- the largest decrease of any age group during this time period -- indicating that the higher legal drinking age simply saves lives.

Google it buddy

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Motor vehicle deaths due to youth drunk drivers have fallen dramatically since the US raised the drinking age. FACT.

I suppose your premise is that it is acceptable to take away a group's rights if doing so leads to a safer society as a whole.

Well, I imagine I could find a stat that says the highest crime per capita is committed by blacks in the 15-25 age group. So by your logic we should put all blacks 15-25 in jail in advance and applaud the reduction in crime.

[Wiglaf]

Let's play name the logical fallacy, kids.

I suppose your premise is that it is acceptable to take away a group's rights if doing so leads to a safer society as a whole.

This is the basis for laws outlawing murder, so it's a solid premise.

Well, I imagine I could find a stat that says the highest crime per capita is committed by blacks in the 15-25 age group. So by your logic we should put all blacks 15-25 in jail in advance and applaud the reduction in crime.

Someone forgot to do the cost benefit analysis on this one Chuck!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Um, letting a handful of 18 year olds marry is a lot less dangerous than letting all 18 year olds drink.

Actually, in Michigan at least, ALL 16 year olds are allowed to marry, have children and be found criminally negligent if they do not raise them properly. It just seems hypocritical to say that these people are old enough to responsible for a baby and not old enough to decide if they want to smoke a cigarette.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
16 year olds are developed enough to know murdering someone is wrong. That's a lot more innate than, say, electing a president based on his policies.

If they are old enough to know murder is wrong and accept a lifelong responsibility for that crime. I think they are old enough to have a say in the system that can take their freedom away.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
But your son in law isn't in Iraq, so what's the point? I fully support the idea that military men and women should be able to drink at 18, but no one else.

UMMM, my son-in-law to be is in Iraq. My point is that when he come home to marry my daughter he won't be allowed in the bar adjacent to the hall he is getting married in. I guess this is because it would be too dangerous for society, yet society thinks it isn't too dangerous to send him to Iraq to defend the system of government that you would use to arrest him.

[Wiglaf]

Actually, in Michigan at least, ALL 16 year olds are allowed to marry, have children and be found criminally negligent if they do not raise them properly. It just seems hypocritical to say that these people are old enough to responsible for a baby and not old enough to decide if they want to smoke a cigarette.

Michigan, frankly, sucks. But if you insist, it's still not so unreasonable, since a VERY small number of 16 year olds are going to get married...compared to a VERY high number who'd be drinking if we lowered the drinking age.

If they are old enough to know murder is wrong and accept a lifelong responsibility for that crime. I think they are old enough to have a say in the system that can take their freedom away.

Donkeys know murder is wrong.

UMMM, my son-in-law to be is in Iraq.

I'm in Iraq right now! Take that, moral highground regained +15.

My point is that when he come home to marry my daughter he won't be allowed in the bar adjacent to the hall he is getting married in. I guess this is because it would be too dangerous for society, yet society thinks it isn't too dangerous to send him to Iraq to defend the system of government that you would use to arrest him

If you're in Iraq, odds are you aren't in America, therefore you pose no risk of drinking and driving into families on the interstate while intoxicated. It's just a safety issue. Statistically, kids just learning to drive + just learning to drink = bad.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Let's play name the logical fallacy, kids.

This is the basis for laws outlawing murder, so it's a solid premise.

Murder is not a RIGHT that is taken away. Defining murder as a crime protects rights. The point is that the 18 year old who drinks has not done anything more wrong than the 30 year old who drinks. Now if after drinking there is some bad behavior by either party they should be accountable for that bad behavior.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Someone forgot to do the cost benefit analysis on this one Chuck!

What if one was done and it proved "beneficial" to society. I suppose you would approve of it. All you care about is the appropriate cost benefit analysis. Well I tend to think that rights are not "given" to someone and are not subject to your cost/benefit analysis.

[Wiglaf]

Murder is not a RIGHT that is taken away. Defining murder as a crime protects rights. The point is that the 18 year old who drinks has not done anything more wrong than the 30 year old who drinks. Now if after drinking there is some bad behavior by either party they should be accountable for that bad behavior.

I think you're spinning your wheels here. The premise = that rights (e.g. the right to urinate where I want, the right to say what I want) are restricted for the benefit of society all the time.

What if one was done and it proved "beneficial" to society. I suppose you would approve of it. All you care about is the appropriate cost benefit analysis. Well I tend to think that rights are not "given" to someone and are not subject to your cost/benefit analysis.

Locking up all young black men would piss everyone off and so would not satisfy even the most racist utilitarian's cost benefit analysis.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Michigan, frankly, sucks. But if you insist, it's still not so unreasonable, since a VERY small number of 16 year olds are going to get married...compared to a VERY high number who'd be drinking if we lowered the drinking age.

So if a small amount of 16 year olds wanted to drink it would be OK? Your logic makes no sense

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Donkeys know murder is wrong.

Wow there is some more great logic that I really can't debate.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I'm in Iraq right now! Take that, moral highground regained +15.

No moral highground intended. You said he wasn't in Iraq. I pointed out that he was. I also pointed out that he is their, supposedly, protecting our freedoms and system of government. The same system of government that says it isn't too dangerous to send 18 year old to a combat zone but it is too dangerous for them to drink beer.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If you're in Iraq, odds are you aren't in America, therefore you pose no risk of drinking and driving into families on the interstate while intoxicated. It's just a safety issue. Statistically, kids just learning to drive + just learning to drink = bad.

I could probably say the same thing about 22 year olds. The point is that it shouldn't be illegal for an 18 year old to drink. It should be illegal for an 18 year to drive poorly.

[Wiglaf]

So if a small amount of 16 year olds wanted to drink it would be OK? Your logic makes no sense

Makes perfect sense. If nobody drinks anyway, who cares about this? The stats on youth drunk driving would go way down and it'd be a waste of time to think about it.

Wow there is some more great logic that I really can't debate.

Thanks for conceding this. I should have probably mentioned that, while most animals know murder is wrong, some do not, especially tigers.

The same system of government that says it isn't too dangerous to send 18 year old to a combat zone but it is too dangerous for them to drink beer.

Interests of the country > safety of highway system in this special case.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


I think you're spinning your wheels here. The premise = that rights (e.g. the right to urinate where I want, the right to say what I want) are restricted for the benefit of society all the time.

Hmm - I never considered urinating wherever you want a "Right" Again I have trouble with your logic.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Locking up all young black men would piss everyone off and so would not satisfy even the most racist utilitarian's cost benefit analysis.

This proves the ridiculousness of your logic. You don't out right state that it would be wrong to lock up a group of people because it would be a violation of their rights. You say it is wrong because it wouldn't pass even a racists cost/benefit analysis. HA HA HA

[Wiglaf]

Hmm - I never considered urinating wherever you want a "Right" Again I have trouble with your logic.

Well, urinating is a right. But one restricted to the pooper, or the bathtub for particularly gross people.

You don't out right state that it would be wrong to lock up a group of people because it would be a violation of their rights. You say it is wrong because it wouldn't pass even a racists cost/benefit analysis. HA HA HA

Rights can be twisted and invented, like the right to privacy and all of this crap. Your proposal to jail all black males would piss too many people off to be effective in any event, so it's moot.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Makes perfect sense. If nobody drinks anyway, who cares about this? The stats on youth drunk driving would go way down and it'd be a waste of time to think about it.



Thanks for conceding this. I should have probably mentioned that, while most animals know murder is wrong, some do not, especially tigers.



Interests of the country > safety of highway system in this special case.

Well I give up. You just don't get it or choose not to. I could keep up this amusing discussion with you all night long but unfortunately I have to go to bed.

BTW the reason the government exists is to protect people's rights. So the idea that the "interest of the country" somehow trumps people's rights is a fallacy since the "interest of the country" is ensuring that people rights are protected.