OzzyKP in the News

[Wiglaf]

However, AND THIS IS A BIG STICKING POINT FOR ME, I don't think that anyone can manipulate a gas station to collapse on top of pursuing cars as easily as the game makes it seem. Also, the police seemed to broadcast all of their transmissions over everyone's FM radio. Is this the kind of training our children need?

[Asher]

I'd say it'd be pretty effective in weeding out the morans.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


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.

16 if supervised by a guardian (as in you can drink in a pub if daddy is with you). How's that?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Need For Speed, Hot Pursuit

-Arrian

[Wiglaf]

Maybe I was thinking of Most Wanted, not Hot Pursuit. Does Hot Pursuit have the whole EA/black gangster culture thing?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Arrian


16 if supervised by a guardian (as in you can drink in a pub if daddy is with you). How's that?

-Arrian

Sounds more reasonable.

I'm not sure where Wiglaf is from but people don't start learning to drive at 18by then they have been doing it for 2 or 3 years. But nothing he has said has made much sense anyways so I won't even bother with him anymore.

[Deity Dude]

Why do I keep responding. I guess such stupidity requires me to.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
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.

The "constitutional process" was not followed. The Constitutional process calls for 2/3 of both the Federal House and Senate and 3/4 of the States to ratify a nationwide ban on 18-20 year old adult prohibition. Since there was NO POSSIBLE WAY that that would have ever passed the true Constitutional process, the Executive Branch unilaterally coerced the states to fall in line. If you disagree that they were coerced then why didn't they let the states choose on their own? What followed was a loophole where 5 out of 9 men decided that 1 man's opinion should be law. Ironically, the 5 of 9 men and the 1 man mentioned are specifically excluded from the process by the Constitution from any part of the amendment process of the Constitution.

Remember, the original intention of the Constitution was to forbid the very practice that took place. (i.e. an Executive Branch that can over rule the will of the people) Also remember that there was no national support for this measure or the Executive Branch would have just let it happen without coercion.

I'm not arguing that what happened was illegal, because illegality is defined by the courts. What I am arguing is that it did not measure up to the test that the Founding Fathers specifically prescribed for passing national law, and that there was not overwhelming national support for the measure. Due to this, the Executive Branch (i.e the president) felt it necessary to use coercion as opposed to the process specifically outlined in the Constitution.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
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.

There is so much stupidity in these 2 statements that I don't where to begin.

Let's start with a technicality. The Interstate highway system has the fewest accidents. Most teenagers or early 20's drinkers or 50 year old drinkers for that matter don't use the Interstate to go to the bar or to the liquor store. They use local roads. Once again showing that the loophole the Federal Government used was inappropriate.

Now let's shift to reality, in most US states driving privileges start at late 14 or early 15. Thus, they aren't just learning to drive at 18, in fact they have been driving for the majority of their post pubescent life. But, if what you are for is "experience", using your logic one could argue that people should start drinking at an earlier age so they were "experienced drinkers" by the time they were allowed to drive. Not something I would approve of, but something your logic could lead us to.

What I feel would be ideal is that every individual would have their own personal age of adulthood. This is obviously impractical and too subjective. So the next best thing IMO is for society to set an age where adult accountability = adult privilege.

As Arrian hinted, a gradual process is probably best. As he said, 16 year olds should be allowed to legally drink with their parents present and I assume he would feel that parental responsibility for the actions of the 16 year old is part of the bargain. This makes sense because the person in question can not drink on their own and they are not responsible on their own. This idea should and could be applied to all areas, for example, perhaps 16 year olds could only marry with parental approval and perhaps parental responsibility if a child is neglected. It is similiar in concept to a co-signer on a loan; the primary signature is assumed responsible but if not the secondary signature is.

At 18 (or whatever age), when the state says you are old enough to give your life at the state's whim in a foriegn country or old enough in EVERY circumstance to be treated as an adult under the law, you should be old enough to acquire ALL adult privileges and protections under the law.

My only point is that if at a certain age an individual is forced by law to be accountable as an adult, is eligible and in some cases required, to serve in the military, and is considered legally responsible for his actions as an adult in a court of law, that individual should have the same privileges as the adult they are held accountable to.

Wiglaf if you want a sig line maybe one of these would be more appropriate than my typo.

One should not be considered an "adult" when accused of murder, yet a "child" when accused of smoking.

One should not be forced to fight in a war as an "adult", yet be prohibited from drinking a glass of champagne at their wedding toast as a "child".

Edited because Wiglaf gets very upset if someone has a typo or extra word in a sentence.