Child of Flame Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 "Heinlein was roundly condemned... [by the] useful idiots of the day. LMAO, those useful idiots of the day I tell ya. I've heard the book is like 10x better then the movie. Is that true? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but not nearly as good as his books with Mike in them.
xanas3712 Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Ok, considerations 1) The democrats, the party of "anti-war" or whatever are the only ones in congress who have even proposed a draft 2) I think the original author of the thread overstates his case, and I'm going to guess he's against the Iraq war so his news sources are probably a bit biased to the left. Of course all these wonderfully accurate sources are also going to slam the regular media because otherwise they can't get anyone to listen to them 3) I'm going to wait and see, but if there is a draft big deal. I am still eligible for it, and if I have to go to Iraq, that's just fine honestly. I don't really want to serve in the military because I don't like the environment, orders, etc. but I'd have no problems doing it for a war that I did support in the first place. That's just being consistent. but it was pretty funny to see him go up to guys who were quite happy to send lots of other people's children to Iraq but when he suggested they send their own the look was like : "Are you mad? No sane person would want their kids there!". That part of the movie was the most bogus because he edited out one of the intervies. Not only that if you look at the statistics and compare them to us regular civilians congress actually has 1) More people who have served than the general populace 2) More people who have children serving than the general populace. Does Moore tell you that? Oh of course not. oh.. and a nice 3) Unlike what Moore wants you to think ,those eligible are not children. Their parents can't "send them to war" because they make their own choices. But of course Moore and others love to play the stupid game of calling soldiers kids.
DemonKing Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 3) Unlike what Moore wants you to think ,those eligible are not children. Their parents can't "send them to war" because they make their own choices. But of course Moore and others love to play the stupid game of calling soldiers kids. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True but even at 18 young people are not fully mature and aware of the full implications of what joining the army means as say, a 30 year old adult is. At 18 a lot of young men for example feel "indestructable" which is why the highest percentage of fatal road accidents is amongst teenage men - they simply find it impossible to imagine they could die. This is the same reason army recruitment targets school leavers for example - they don't see the danger, only the excitement. So physically, they may be adults, but mentally, perhaps still kids.
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 19, 2004 Author Posted September 19, 2004 "1) The democrats, the party of "anti-war" or whatever are the only ones in congress who have even proposed a draft" lol. I think its rather naive to generalize one party anti war firstly... 2) I think the original author of the thread overstates his case, and I'm going to guess he's against the Iraq war so his news sources are probably a bit biased to the left. Of course all these wonderfully accurate sources are also going to slam the regular media because otherwise they can't get anyone to listen to them" Being for or agianst something doesn't necessarily mean one gets opinions from the media. Sure many 'left' sources are agianst because they are biased, and many 'right' media are for it because they're biased. But somewhere in the scheme of things, there is actual logic. And IMO the logic of action shows going into Iraq was bogus and a stupid at best. "3) I'm going to wait and see, but if there is a draft big deal. I am still eligible for it, and if I have to go to Iraq, that's just fine honestly. I don't really want to serve in the military because I don't like the environment, orders, etc. but I'd have no problems doing it for a war that I did support in the first place. That's just being consistent." At least your not a hypocrite.
Dakoth Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 more meat for the grinder in Iraq. I'm sure Bush and his arm chair generals are happy, safe and sound back home. As are the rest of the polititions in Washington that voted for the war. So your point is? True but even at 18 young people are not fully mature and aware of the full implications of what joining the army means as say, a 30 year old adult is. At 18 a lot of young men for example feel "indestructable" which is why the highest percentage of fatal road accidents is amongst teenage men - they simply find it impossible to imagine they could die. This is the same reason army recruitment targets school leavers for example - they don't see the danger, only the excitement. So physically, they may be adults, but mentally, perhaps still kids. You are quite right but that doesn't excuse them from making other adult decisions that negatively affect their lives. Driving while drunk, drug use, pregnancy these are all things that could affect their lives for many years and fall under the indistructable mind set, or how about that will never happen to me mind set. Do you expect them to act like an adult and accept the consiquences of those actions? The difference between a 18 year old and a 30 year old is experience, and the 18 year old always has more experienced people to fall back on and ask for help or insight. The true problem is at that age they think they know everything. So they have made their decision now they must live with it. Unless you are the type of person that doesn't believe in personal responsibility in which case they don't.
Monte Carlo Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Soldiers join to serve. You don't get war a la carte. Kids nowadays seem to think that they'll only kill the foreigners that suit their own personal agenda, which ain't the way it's done. You might get a popular war with lots of shiny medals and a clear moral agenda. Chances are you'll get a crappy one where you roundly beat a third world army then get bogged down in a gritty counter-insurgency. Meanwhile, all the other kids your age are earning more for doing less, watching MTV and screwing your girlfriend. Was ever thus. I can imagine Roman Legionaries bitching that they could be sitting pretty in Gaul instead of freezing their arses off on Hadrian's Wall fighting picts. All part of the deal, ladies. Some people fall for the recruiting spiel ("army of one" my arse), some don't. You have the priviledge of not volunteering for regular military service in a Western democracy. In 1991 I was an infantry reservist. We were put on notice for the first Gulf War as battlefield casualty replacements. I, to put it bluntly, near messed myself with worry. But I was going to go because I'd signed the dotted line and I knew the risks. As it turned out, the chances of us going was slim given the duration of the war, but it didn't feel like that at the time. I was preparing myself to put my life on hold for a bit to go to war. At least I learnt that I was prepared to put my money where my mouth was and fulfil my obligation. Most professional soldiers don't want the sympathy of civilians, just a little bit of understanding and perhaps a sliver of respect. Which, by and large, they deserve. --- And, yes, although the movie of Starship Troopers is a clever parody that underlines the authoritarian themes of the novel, as a piece of popular culture the novel blows it out of the water. Cheers MC
deganawida Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 True but even at 18 young people are not fully mature and aware of the full implications of what joining the army means as say, a 30 year old adult is. At 18 a lot of young men for example feel "indestructable" which is why the highest percentage of fatal road accidents is amongst teenage men - they simply find it impossible to imagine they could die. This is the same reason army recruitment targets school leavers for example - they don't see the danger, only the excitement. So physically, they may be adults, but mentally, perhaps still kids. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, you're in favor of raising the voting age, drinking age, and driving age to 30? Nice to know, thanks. <_<
chemchok Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Well, we should lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to join the military you should be allowed to drink a beer.
Child of Flame Posted September 19, 2004 Posted September 19, 2004 Well, we should lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to join the military you should be allowed to drink a beer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm in agreement with that, though I rather like the UK's drinking laws better. I rather like the idea of adults teaching their youngun's how to use a mind altering substance from a young age.....the ones who want to use it at that age find it for themselves anyway.
Dakoth Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 Well, we should lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to join the military you should be allowed to drink a beer. I agree with your statement but there is a stronger argument. How can a system of law that calls its self "fair" consider you an adult for every crime, but say you are a minor when it comes to the sale, and consumption of alcohol. That is a clear double standard and is unfair.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 "That is a clear double standard and is unfair." No it isn't. It's just sensible. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
DemonKing Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 So, you're in favor of raising the voting age, drinking age, and driving age to 30? Nice to know, thanks. <_< <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not at all - if you never get a little responsibility how can you mature? I do think that you should have had at least a chance to vote *once* before they ship you off to war though. Actually I could be wrong but I think in Australia they gave soliders serving in the Vietnam war under the age of 18 the right to vote on the basis that it wasn't right for the government to expect you to die when you had no say in the make-up of said government.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 Soldiers don't get to choose who they're gunning at. That's part of the deal. edit: Though, if you've served in the war, I'd say you're mature enough to vote. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 20, 2004 Author Posted September 20, 2004 I agree if your old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to have a beer... But it's not that simple IMO. I also agree with the parents teaching the children about such things at an early age. Only parents who fear too much the sense is negated from them would think otherwise IMO. Hiding things isn't the way to keep children away from them. lol. More so it's a way to attract them.
Dakoth Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 No it isn't. It's just sensible. No not really Sajahurmaaja. By our own laws what makes an adult is the ability to tell right from wrong.(this is speaking for the US only) Our governing bodies feels an 18 year old knows well enogh that murder, theft, drug and illegal weapons trafficing is wrong, but that they don't know when they have had enough alcohol. Considering that past the age of 21 some people will never understand this how is it fair. The said 18 year old can serve a death sentence for a henious crime as any adult would, but not drink beer because he is a minor. You don't see how that doesn't make sense? Our government needs to relise this and change something. Wether it be you are considered an adult a 21 or you can drink at 18 you make the call. The fact remains to consider some a minor in one aspect and an adult in another is a double standard and needs to be fixed.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 "You don't see how that doesn't make sense?" No, I don't. I can very well see the fact that you pretty damn well should see the difference between right and wrong by the time you're 18 (btw, in Finland, if you're over 15, courts will handle you as an adult - 18 is the legal drinking age, but strongest stuff is not allowed. You're an adult then, and can get a driver's license. For strong stuff, you gotta be 21) but might not realize you've drank too much. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
Dakoth Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 "You don't see how that doesn't make sense?" No, I don't. I can very well see the fact that you pretty damn well shouldn't see the difference between right and wrong by the time you're 18 (btw, in Finland, if you're over 15, courts will handle you as an adult - 18 is the legal drinking age, but strongest stuff is not allowed. You're an adult then, and can get a driver's license. For strong stuff, you gotta be 21) but might not realize you've drank too much. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In cases such as murder it is handled the same here. Shouldn't as in refuse or shoudn't as don't have the cognitive ability to reason that taking someones life is trafficing a controled substance or drinking to much and driving is wrong? Getting a liscence means nothing to the argument, as in America we don't see driving as an adult only priviledge. You simply are not considered an adult if you do not recieve all adult privlidges plain and simple. By doing it the way they do an 18-20 year oldsare neither an adult considered responsible for own actions and can consume alcohol, or a child not responsible for own actions and can not consume alcohol. The ages of 18-20 are more or less second class adults. 18 is the legal drinking age, but strongest stuff is not allowed This is what truely boggles my mind as it has been shown you can be just as impared from beer as wisky.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 "Shouldn't as in refuse or shoudn't as don't have the cognitive ability to reason that taking someones life is trafficing a controled substance or drinking to much and driving is wrong?" No, "shouldn't" as in "should". "This is what truely boggles my mind as it has been shown you can be just as impared from beer as wisky." Yeah, but you might just not realize when drinking how much stronger the strong stuff really is. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
Dakoth Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 "Shouldn't as in refuse or shoudn't as don't have the cognitive ability to reason that taking someones life is trafficing a controled substance or drinking to much and driving is wrong?" No, "shouldn't" as in "should". "This is what truely boggles my mind as it has been shown you can be just as impared from beer as wisky." Yeah, but you might just not realize when drinking how much stronger the strong stuff really is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry posted before edit? My point is they know while drinking by its self is not wrong drinking and driving home is. That is what I am talking about they are adult enough to know murder is wrong but not to know that driving while impaired is wrong. Our government more wants to protect them from making a bad decisions than saying they don't know better.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 The way I see it is that they're adult enough to know murder is wrong (duh) but not mature enough to realize that they really are impaired and mortal. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 20, 2004 Author Posted September 20, 2004 Considering the circumstances I can see both sides. If you kill someone while your driving drunk.. Your in a for horrible ride(unless your in the rich upper echelon, then your somewhat safe). Then there is the view of if your doing 1 illegal thing why not another? Drink=illegal? Drive=illegal? ****it! lol.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 Um, no, that doesn't make sense. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
Dakoth Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 The way I see it is that they're adult enough to know murder is wrong (duh) but not mature enough to realize that they really are impaired and mortal. There is a flaw with that most people over 21 one make the same bad choice, or are you under the impresion only 18-20 year olds get DUIs and in accidents? So maturaty does not come into it. The law is only worried that you understand the difference between right and wrong. Which is why that law makes no sense, they know it is wrong the law is just trying to save them from making a bad decision that could litteraly affect the rest of their lives.
Sarjahurmaaja. Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 "There is a flaw with that most people over 21 one make the same bad choice, or are you under the impresion only 18-20 year olds get DUIs and in accidents? So maturaty does not come into it." Ah, well, that's the problem with the age being so high there as it is. If they got to the drinking business a bit earlier, they'd have time to accumulate enough bad experiences to realize a few important things. Then they're probably mature enough for the stronger stuff. It's kinda hard to talk about this, too, because the system there seems to be quite a bit different (and more f*cked up, too ) there than here. 9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!
Dakoth Posted September 20, 2004 Posted September 20, 2004 It's kinda hard to talk about this, too, because the system there seems to be quite a bit different (and more f*cked up, too ) there than here. Which is why I think some things need to be changed.
Recommended Posts