OzzyKP in the News

[Wiglaf]

The idea that the right for kids to booze it up is protected anywhere by the constitution is the real fallacy, considering it's pretty much banned by Amendment 26.

[OzzyKP]

Good points DD. Arguing with Wiglaf is usually not worth the effort. But I do want to clear up one thing.

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

NOT a fact. This is a MYTH. A myth that has been recycled by MADD and their ilk for decades.

1. Their studies use data from the 70's and they have been extrapolating from that ever since.

2. More recent studies disagree.

3. There was, indeed a huge drop in drunk driving fatalities since the early 80's. This was due to many different factors such as seat belt use, safer cars, the drop in the BAC level (which Candy Lightner opposed btw), and increased education & awareness about drunk driving resulting in increased use of designated drivers and more responsible behavior.

4. Proof of that is this study which shows that states that were 21 and did nothing to change their drinking age experienced the exact same drop in drunk driving as states that were 18 and raised it to 21.

5. Another good study showed that there was a bit of a decline in drunk driving among 18-20 year olds after the drinking age was raised but that there was a corresponding increase in drunk driving among 21-24 year olds. The MADD and NHTSA studies never consider negative side effects of the law change. But it makes sense, now since people aren't getting the legal drinking bug out of their system at 18-20 are delaying it to 21-24. Overall no lives are saved, the law just postpones bad behavior by 3 years. Cite:
Peter Asch and David T. Levy, "Does the Minimum Drinking Age Affect Traffic Fatalities?" Journal of. Policy Analysis and Management 6.2 (1987)

[Wiglaf]

NOT a fact. This is a MYTH.

YES A FACT. FACT FACT FACT.

Your own study concludes that teen deaths in car accidents dropped 40% whereas adults dropped 22% in the same period, clearly indicating more is at work that 'seat belt usage.' Also, read the conclusion section one more time.

Not good enough, sorry.

[LordShiva]

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

QFT!

[KrazyHorse]

[Caligastia]

I'd still like to know what Ozzy's stance is on the age of consent. This question never seems to get answered.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The idea that the right for kids to booze it up is protected anywhere by the constitution is the real fallacy, considering it's pretty much banned by Amendment 26.

I know I said I was done but such your idiocracy needs to be addressed.

The 26th Amendment guaranteed that 18-20 year old adults would have the right to vote everywhere in the United States. It says nothing about "boozing it up". However, as result of the 26th Amendment most states saw the hypocracy of allowing 18 years olds to vote, conscripting 18 year olds into the army and forcing them to kill and potentially be killed, allowing 18 year olds to from legal contracts, allowing 18 year olds to marry and raise chlldren, holding 18 years olds accountable as adults in matters of criminal law and yet not allowing them to have a beer.

So, even though the 26th Ammendment itself was silent on the issue of "boozing it up ", the passage of the 26th Amendment led to most states lowering their drinking age to 18.

Now that you have been shown to be totally wrong once again lets summarize what we discussed earlier.


You feel that the drinking age should be 21 because alot of people under 21 would drink if it were legal but you state that if only a few people under 21 would drink you would not mind lowering the drinking age.

I feel that society should set an appropriate age for both accountability and priviledge. And it shouldn't be based on your projected number of participants.


You feel that the reason why it would be wrong to lock up all 15-25 year olds blacks to preemptively lower the crime rate is because even a racist's cost benefit anaylsis wouldn't approve of it.

I feel it's wrong because society doesn't have the right to take away someone's rights without cause.

Or put another way, you feel your cost/benefit analysis trumps a person's rights as a human being. I feel a person's human rights are not subject to your's or anyone's cost/benefit analysis. (I believe your thinking might have been why we interned American's of Japanese heritage in the 1940's or why Southerner's felt it OK to lynch blacks in the post Civil War era I'm sure alot of "educated" people with statistics did a "cost/benefit analysis")


You seem to think that (as you put it) since donkeys know that murder is wrong but tigers don't, that a 12 year old should be treated as an adult when it comes to a capital crime but a 20 year old shouldn't be given the same privelidges as a 21 year old.

I don't understand that logic


You find no problem with a legal system that says 16 year olds are old enough to marry, have children and be criminally liable if they don't raise those children properly but those same 16 year olds aren't old enough to decide if they want to smoke a cigarette.

I feel that if society says someone is old enough and legally responsible for raising a child they are old enough to smoke a cigarette if they want.


You, for some reason, seem to think it is OK for Americans age 18-20 to drink in Iraq but not at their own wedding if it is in the US.

I think that if society says it's not too dangerous for an 18 year old to risk his life to support our country in Iraq, it's not too dangerous for our country to allow him to have a beer at his wedding in the US.

I could go on and on but I think I made my point.

[Deity Dude]

BTW how do you know that a donkey knows murder is wrong. Could it be that it takes an ass to know how an ass thinks?

[Wiglaf]

Jesus, am I supposed to read all that? Ugh. Don't you have a national guards meeting to go to where you can plot to blow up some building like the good old days in Nam?

I know I said I was done but such your idiocracy needs to be addressed.

Quote of the month! Sig material in fact.

as result of the 26th Amendment most states saw the hypocracy of allowing 18 years olds to vote, conscripting 18 year olds into the army and forcing them to kill and potentially be killed, allowing 18 year olds to from legal contracts, allowing 18 year olds to marry and raise chlldren, holding 18 years olds accountable as adults in matters of criminal law and yet not allowing them to have a beer.

Problem 1: Your spelling.

Problem 2: Repeating arguments I've already debunked just wastes space.

Problem 3: You again ignore the fact that it is far more dangerous to allow every teen to drink than to allow every teen to marry. If you can't figure out why, well, there's a reason I said Michigan sucks.*

*Then again, it's possible marrying is as dangerous as drunk driving in Michigan. Hadn't thought about all those trailer park brawls. HONEY DON'T GIMME DAT **** I COOKED THESE RED BEANS BEST I KNEW HOW! PUT DOWN MY SHOTGUN WOMAN!

So, even though the 26th Ammendment itself was silent on the issue of "boozing it up ", the passage of the 26th Amendment led to most states lowering their drinking age to 18.

What led them to raise it? Oh yes, a federal law upheld as constitutional by the Rehnquist court. So much for your rights theory.

Amendment 26 kept the drinking age intact for a reason.

You feel that the reason why it would be wrong to lock up all 15-25 year olds blacks to preemptively lower the crime rate is because even a racist's cost benefit anaylsis wouldn't approve of it.

I feel it's wrong because society doesn't have the right to take away someone's rights without cause.

Problem 1: There is no constitutional right so what are you referring to?

Problem 2: There is a cause, so eat that apple as well.

You seem to think that (as you put it) since donkeys know that murder is wrong but tigers don't, that a 12 year old should be treated as an adult when it comes to a capital crime but a 20 year old shouldn't be given the same privelidges as a 21 year old.

It's easier to understand basic laws of nature [don't kill] than complex ones [don't drink because it doubles the highway fatality rate in this country, son. SCREW THAT DAD GOOOO SPARTANS!!!1]

[Arrian]

YES A FACT. FACT FACT FACT.

Wiggy in fine form.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I have no problem at all with lowering the drinking age to 18. It's bull**** that you are considered an adult in all other ways, but you're not allowed to drink.

As for the rest... look, you have to draw lines somewhere. They are going to be arbitrary b/c they will be applied to millions of people. Individual maturity will vary, but the law can't deal with that.

-Arrian

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I know I said I was done but such your idiocracy needs to be addressed.

Wow, when typing at 2:30 in the morning I accidentaly added a word to a sentence. Let me correct the huge unforgivable error.

I know I said I was done but such idiocracy needs to be addressed.

or

I know I said I was done but your idiocracy needs to be addressed.

The funny thing is you didn't really answer any of my arguments. You were obviously wrong about the 26th Amendment. What you meant to argue was that 14 years after the 26th Amendment was passed the Executive Branch of the Government basically nullified the Constitution. Funny thing is that it had to use a llophole to get the law passed nationawide because there wasn't uniform national support for it. So they did one of their favorite tricks (that I highly doubt any of the founding fathers would have found as an appropriate way to nullify part of the Constitution). They forcibly take money from the states then threaten not to give it back unless they go along with the coercion. So a law that should require 2/3 of The Federal House and Senate plus 3/4 of the States and specifically excludes the Executive Branch in the process, is made by the Executive Branch through coercion. I guess someone did a cost/benefit anaylsis and decided not to follow the constitutional process.

By the way less then 6% of housing units in Michigan are mobil homes and many of that 6% are second homes. I'm not sure why you were putting down Michigan so much but I just thought I would point out another of your kneejerk inaccuracies.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Arrian
I have no problem at all with lowering the drinking age to 18. It's bull**** that you are considered an adult in all other ways, but you're not allowed to drink.

As for the rest... look, you have to draw lines somewhere. They are going to be arbitrary b/c they will be applied to millions of people. Individual maturity will vary, but the law can't deal with that.

-Arrian

I tend to agree generally with this point of view Arrian but would probably make it 16. Or I would not allow courts to treat 16 year olds as adults. I would make a consistant age. Like I said earlier, the way the laws are setup 14-20 year olds are presumed mature enough to have many of the responsibilities of adults but not mature enough to have the privileges.

[Wiglaf]

I guess someone did a cost/benefit anaylsis and decided not to follow the constitutional process.

The constitutional process was followed as evidenced by the fact that the federal law taking away money from non complying states was upheld as constitutional by 9 people a lot smarter than you are.

Originally posted by Arrian
I have no problem at all with lowering the drinking age to 18. It's bull**** that you are considered an adult in all other ways, but you're not allowed to drink.
-Arrian

18 year olds are just learning how to drive. Giving them licenses AND the right to booze has proven deadly on the interstates. It is like giving a novice tiger trainer control of a whole den of lions.

On the other hand, giving them the right to drive and vote is educational and helps them out.

[Asher]

18 year olds are just learning how to drive. Giving them licenses AND the right to booze has proven deadly on the interstates. On the other hand, giving them the right to drive and vote is educational and helps them out.

Alberta has licenses at 16, drinking at 18, and drunk driving is probably even a bit less common in Alberta than it is in US states.

The obvious solution to your problem is to let 12 year olds drive. Or mandate "Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit" for 4 years before people can drive.