namelesstavern.net

10sun wrote:

Harrison wrote:I don't know what to say if you can't see a difference, even there.

(though semantics doesn't change anything about the ludicrous comparison between a tax on a relative necessity to that of a tax on an entirely stupid "luxury" that kills people)

How about taxes on cigarettes vs taxes on alcohol then?

Wouldn't bother me at all. The amount of damage done by drinking in sheer amount of deaths is disparate enough to show the futility in comparing them, but they are a similar luxury.

They should also lower the drinking age to 18. Being able to take a bullet for the country and not be able to drink a few beers is fucking retarded.

eh no, bars are packed with enough jerk offs as it is.

There's a good reason to restrict an adult from being able to do what they should be able to.

Harrison wrote:They should also lower the drinking age to 18. Being able to take a bullet for the country and not be able to drink a few beers is fucking retarded.

i could be completely mistaken, so please someone correct me if i'm wrong-- but i was always under the impression that the federal drinking age actually IS 18

the story goes that when states raise it to 21, they get big highway safety grants and other bonuses from the govt


but again, that could be complete BS

I'm not entirely sure on that to be honest. That's the first I've ever heard of that.

only thing i have to lend credibility to the story is that different states went to 21 at different times

In 1984 the federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act requiring all states to raise it to 21 or face highway funds reduction under the Federal Highway Aid Act.

Every state that had a lower age limit raised it then.

aha, so i had it backwards

instead of "raise it and you get funding" it was "raise it or you lose funding"

GO STUDY!

There was a recent discussion on the topic of drinking age on the local radio talk show. Many college deans want the age lowered to 18 in order to prevent binge drinking.

Ultimately, this is what it boiled down to, according to a few informed experts.

The brain isn't fully developed until age 25 or so, which has a lot to do with the reason the drinking age was raised to 21.

The idea behind allowing 18 year olds into the military, is that they have the "no fear" attitude at that age.

Now, I don't really have an opinion either way, but after doing research on whether or not to join the Army over the last couple of months, I've found that all the women and men that have had experience down range, stated that the younger folks, ages 18-21, were actually more afraid and reacted almost always out of fear, instead of how they were trained.

I think the idea behind allowing 18 year olds into the military goes hand in hand with the idea that the brain isn't fully developed until age 25.

seriously, it's pretty brilliant. make them think like killers before they're even old enough to really think at all

There's something honestly wrong with you if you think they're conditioning people into thinking they're "killers". This isn't the sixties.

Moreso if you believe they're intentionally seeking recruits at a younger age to ease said brainwashing.

Actually almost every NCO and Officer I have ever spoken with prefers younger privates specifically because they are easier to mold. The older a person is, the more set they are in doing things their own way and are not as willing to adopt a new way of doing or seeing things.

That's not what I was talking about. That's obvious in most cases.

yeah that's all i'm talkin about. sorry i said killers

Moreso if you believe they're intentionally seeking recruits at a younger age to ease said brainwashing.

The thing is, this is exactly what the military does. You may not like the term brainwashing, but in reality that's what they are doing. The average person joining the military is not a killer, but that is specifically what they need to turn you into. You need to be able to put a child in your sites and pull the trigger if that's what is needed. Pick some random person off the street and tell them to do it, more often then not, they would die when the kid blew them both up. It would be rare to find someone who would actually pull the trigger. The military needs to train you to do just that, pull the trigger and take the life. During bayonet training you may hear the exact words "Your a killer", they will want you to act like one. If you do not think the purpose of BCT is to start to mold average citizens into killers, you are deluding yourself. The whole purpose of it is to acclimate you to the military life. The ultimate goal of the successful military must always be to achieve peace, however, to do this you need to be willing and able to take a life.

In short, they seek out younger people for this because they are easier to mold (brainwash) into what they need, people willing to kill. There are certainly other reasons the military targets teenagers, but the primary reason is that they are easier to turn into what they need.

And there is the obvious difference between killers and murderers. A murderer is obviously a killer, but the reverse is not necessarily true. The military needs, and must have (especially in the army and marines), killers. The flatly do NOT want murderers, however, for obvious reasons.

Now, when you get talking about the air force or navy, depending on role, that may be a slightly different kettle of fish. Even in the army, certain roles may be exempt too, such as a full-fledged surgeon joining up and being brought in straight as a Captain. They may indeed require base proficiency with a rifle, but the army knows damn well it won't be able to turn a doctor into a killer like it would the average raw recruit, but since their role is so vital, the army won't even try.

-Arlos

Weird, the officers I've talked to prefer the more mature soldiers because they know how to listen and respect.
(this is all of course very general, subjective and circumstantial.)

No cigarettes in a week. Go me!

Do the officers you have spoke with have any connection to initial training? I am not talking about people in the field, this is very specifically in entry level training. When you get in the field espeically in battle, then you most certainly want a more mature soldier, preferably one that the military got a hold of when they were young

training, in the field and down range.

6$

10sun wrote:No cigarettes in a week. Go me!

nice work man

I have been nursing an A Fuente Gran Reserv (monster cigar) the past couple days though. Couple of puffs, put it back into the top of my chimenea and repeat.