Being a "kid" in this stupid country.

[Shackled Phoenix]

WTH do i mean by that? Well i'm 20 years old, fully responsible for my own actions as an adult, yet I am no where near as well treated, nor legally entitled as an "adult"

I can't drink even if i wanted to, I can't even serve alchohol in 14 states, can't bartend in 38. I can't even go on some of my favorite gameshows, or win most radio contests.

And respect? I get so much less than an "adult." Case in point, today i went to go take an alchohol training class (so that i can serve alchohol in Indiana since i'm under 21) and it was at a government building with a checkpoint, metal detectors and all. The woman in front of me was about 40, going to the same class (managers have to take it if they have age 19-20 employees) and she get's a happy, friendly smile from the guard, even a "good day ma'am". He turns to me and i literally watched the smile drop off of his face. He winds up treating me like total shit. I've been denied jobs before because i'm not considered responsible enough because i'm under 21.

So WTF is up with this? I desperately want to go back to Montreal because there, once you're 17, people actually treat you like an adult. Same thing in both england, and japan. And though i've never personally experienced it, I've heard from people who've were from Italy, Spain, and France that they are all treated like adults at 17-18 also.

I'm really pissed at both sides here. Pissed at the people who want to give us the consequences of adulthood, but none of the rewards, and sick of the stupid 18-20 year olds that prove them right. But you have to ask yourself, would you bother to do something, or take on a responsibility if there was no reward in it?

[Karmashock]

So all of this is about booze?... we have a fine tradition in this country of buying our booze from shady retailers or using fake IDs with people that don't give a damn.

I've never been talked down to for my age, but then I've always looked older... it's the way I carry myself I guess... I could pass for a college student at 15...

Regardless, the general notion in this country is that the stuff shouldn't be drunk freely by anyone under 21... why?... it's arbitrary... just like 17-18... made up numbers... a kid that came from a country that has no laws about alcohol could bitch about Canadian law just as easily... he could say "I was brought up in my father's bar and served customers at 8"... In the US we set the age at 3 or 4 years beyond Canada... so what? In every other thing you're treated more or less as you should be.

[/<yle]

In my family (which when the family gathers, speeks sweedish, My parents arnt considered adults, and their in their 50's. So, dunno. Although, my mother considered me an adult at age 16.

[Shackled Phoenix]

No karma it's not all about booze, although several parts revolve around it. I don't drink much so I really don't care about that part as much. But not being able to serve it, because i'm not responsible enough? I have been denied other jobs too because i'm not reponsible enough due to my age, and that is what is pissing me off. Once I turned 18 in this country I had to act just as responsible as someone 40 years old, I suffer the same consequences to my actions, and yet, I recieve neither the same respect, nor benefits such a person gets.

It's not having to be 21 to get those things, (or in some cases older) it's the fact that 18-20, I wind up stuck halfway in between where I'm only considered an adult when it benefits others to think of me that way.

[CELTIC_2X]

hahhahahahahha the limit is 18 over here, u can drive a 50cc bike at 16, and a car at 17, hahhaha but u cant drink till ur 21 hahahha

[Karmashock]

But not being able to serve it, because i'm not responsible enough?
Indeed... I wouldn't let a person not allowed to drive a car sell them either. This is STILL about booze.

I have been denied other jobs too because I’m not responsible enough due to my age, and that is what is pissing me off. Once I turned 18 in this country I had to act just as responsible as someone 40 years old, I suffer the same consequences to my actions, and yet, I receive neither the same respect, nor benefits such a person gets.
Give me an example. Whatever it is, it will likely have to do with ATF... alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms.

It's not having to be 21 to get those things, (or in some cases older) it's the fact that 18-20, I wind up stuck halfway in between where I'm only considered an adult when it benefits others to think of me that way.
again, we're talking about arbitrary figures... you never answered by question in the previous post... is 17 the right age?... shouldn't you be able to drink/serve regardless of age?

Why have rules? Because if you're going to have rules then there has to be an age and no age can be right... you just have to choose one that sounds right to you and do that.

Frankly, I think 18 should be the universal age where 'nearly' everything is allowed. If I can vote, then I should be able to drink etc... running for president should be restricted to older fellows, but aside from that... 18 for all things.


At the end of the day, whatever your complaint is will likely revolve around ATF… and I just don’t think there is much to get excited about there.

[DrunkenUno]

God Bless the wonderful state of New Jersey.

[MVB]

Unfortunately, I must generally disagree.

Most 20 year olds, including myself at that age, are woefully inept and immature. I have not met one single 20 year old with the maturity of a 25 year old, and that includes people on the TLSC boards. There are certainly plenty of 25 year olds with the maturity of a 20 year old, but you get my point.

I don't care if there are miraculous exceptions. I don't care if you, ques (And I really like you a lot, and think you are relatively mature, so don't take this the wrong way), are this miraculous exception. The fact is, having just been there and knowing how mature I THOUGHT I was, and having made the SAME comments you've made, I'm glad the responsibility age is as high as it is in this country.

[Justice]

I think 21 is an excellent age cap.

People are going to break it anyways, but meh ... what can you do?

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[LardGibs]

my $.02


I think the age 21 is about right, but not for the majority. People who will go on to develop a substance abuse problem with alcohol have a good chance of making it through college when the age is 21, but if it was 18, there'd be no chance in hell.
However, when I waited on table a long time ago the old fogies with their gin and tonics left sweet tips, so I feel your pain Ques. <3

[Ummon]

18 is too young, not for alcohol, but for everything. People start to vote at 18 here. And this is ridiculous. Another thing the US does better than old Europe.

[Shackled Phoenix]

You're all missing my point, so i guess i didn't spell it out right. I'm just sick of being treated like a child, yet am expected to act like an adult. If it was 21 to vote, smoke, drink, serve alchohol, live on your own, be convicted as an adult, etc fine. okay.

But at 18, i'm expected to live on my own, act as responsible as any other adult, be convicted as one, etc, yet i am still quite often treated as a child, and i do not yet have full rights as an adult.

like i said earlier it's not whether the age of adulthood is 18 or 21 that pisses me off. it's the in between period where i'm neither an adult nor a child.

And MVB i agree with you in that yup, alotta 20 years aren't very responsible. But I guess because i've been living on my own since 17, paying my own bills and stuff, i've managed to meet more than you that have learned responsibility.

[Blacksand]

The situation can be .. disheartening, to say the least. I agree.
I can relate to said situation as well.
You've been on your own since 17, and that is admirable to say the least.
I did it when I was 15. Don't take it as bragging, it was a horrible situation I made the best of. I remember the snide looks and comments and the reduced pay because I had to work under the table. Hell, I sacraficed all of highschool except for part of my freshman year. From that I worked my way into managing an IHOP and a Wendy's before 20, and trying to juggle that with going to tech school. Got burned out after a year.

As for the drinking age, I agree with that totally. Hell, you can join the armed forces at 17. Vote at 18. If you're old enough to vote, drive, and die for your country, you should be able to drink. Granted, it's not so much a matter of law that Ques is referring to as it is people's inherent ability to dismiss someone of a younger age of having ANY worth or importance. People tried to take advantage of my age when they would try to complain about the food served at the IHOP, or try to get free meals.. and I admit it gave me a great feeling to stick it to the very people that disregarded me for my age. But in all actuality, the only thing I can say is remember the feelings you're dealing with Ques - and don't treat people younger than you the same way undeservingly.

[Bentusi]

here's a fun fact.

I will turn 18 in about.. 18 days.

When I turn 18 I will LEGALLY be able to own a gun.

And yet I can't drink legally for 3 more years. I find something wrong with that

[Karmashock]

18 is too young, not for alcohol, but for everything. People start to vote at 18 here. And this is ricidulous. Another thing the US does better than old Europe.
this is countered by the fact that the younger you are the less likely you are to vote... old people nearly always vote.
=====================
As to the rest, all you guys are bitching about is that you can't legally drink. However, it's so easy to get booze that I don't know why you're bitching. I drank every now and then since my junior year in highschool (I was 16) ... not a lot... just at a party or something. Even today I only drink about once a week and never to excess... my only major vice is that I drink about 2 liters or diet coke every day... my body is used to it... If I don't drink it I go to sleep at 5pm. :drink:

[MVB]

Bentusi, I'm glad as fuck you can't drink AND own a gun right away. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of drunk-ass gun-toting 18 year olds cruising the streets.

Besides, drinking is most fun when you're 18-21. It loses a lot of it's "cool" when you can do it legally.

It's also a stupid thing, I think, to complain about. Ques, you have all the responsibility you could want. Insurance companies won't give you lower rate until you're 25 ... it's an issue of learned resopnse.

[Larsson7]

I think Shackleds point is that he only wants a job and that job involves serving alcohol.

He has not once stated that he wants to get shit faced.

The Army will let you join at 17 and start using devestating weaponry, however, a 20 year old is not responsible enough to serve beer and handle cash?

I was working as part-time bartender at 17 and it is certainly not rocket science.

I think you are a victim of stupidity.

[MVB]

He's a she, just fyi.

I realize her point, and tend to agree. If she is denied a job in her state due to her age related to serving alcohol, that's one thing. If she is denied a job because she is 20 and the employers don't believe that generally infers enough maturity, I'm simply saying that in most cases I agree completely with the employers, and they need to protect their interests by being careful about hiring people from an age group not GENERALLY OR USUALLY mature enough to handle the responsibilities of more serious jobs.

[Karmashock]

I think Shackleds point is that he only wants a job and that job involves serving alcohol.
uh...serving requires access to the substance. If you can't buy it, then it follows that you shouldn't be able to sell it. I mean... you can't walk into a store and say "i'm buying it for for the guy with white santa beard in the car (ie Jeff doing his best to look like an old man in his mother's car)" so it's obvious that you can't expect them to just 'trust' you.

You CAN handle cash below that age though... you just can't sell booze... restaurants that actually give you lots of access to booze will let you work for them if you're under 21... But asking to be a bartender is just too blatant.



I will ask again because it was ignored the first time... Would it be ok if people could drink at any age?... seriously?... it's your body... so why not let 5 year olds buy 180 proof mind rot? Why does it magically become ok at 17 or 21?... Remember that it was banned at ANY age during prohibition... to this day it's watered down by law in places like Utah. In fact, I think it’s watered down slightly for the whole country… at least beer is… unless you go for microbrew… but that’s a different story.

He has not once stated that he wants to get shit faced.
Getting shit-faced isn't mentioned anywhere. Having ANY alcohol in your system is illegal below the age... Drinking too much cough syrup will get the machine to flag you.

The Army will let you join at 17 and start using devestating weaponry, however, a 20 year old is not responsible enough to serve beer and handle cash?
Handling weapons that you're rigorously trained to use and then deployed under an experienced officer is NOTHING like being able to drink any amount of alcohol, at any time, for any reason with the ONLY exception that you shouldn't be driving while intoxicated. I should further note that the military will allow even younger people to volunteer if the ranks are really thin and there is a serious war on. You could probably get away with 13 during the civil war.
Furthermore, ‘devastating’ weaponry isn’t going to go any farther then a general issue rifle as they’re sure as hell not going to put you in charge of anything expensive.
Additionally, your service will more likely involve packing and sorting weapons for the troops. If you join at a really young age get prepared to peal potatoes and clean the lantern at a training camp… someone has to do that and they’d rather not send you to the front (for many many reasons) so you’re it.

Your analogy doesn't work... try another.

I was working as part-time bartender at 17 and it is certainly not rocket science.
The complexity of drinking is also immaterial. Snorting cocaine isn't prohibited because no one is smart enough to deal with the effects. There is no IQ test before someone lets you handle a gun. At least try to come up with something that is even remotely relevant to the question at hand.

The notion is that alcohol interferes with the development of the body and brain. Therefore it is prohibited until it is assumed that the individual has fully developed. It is true that caffeine and several other chemicals have negative effect on human development… but these are matters of arbitrary degree. As bad as caffeine is for a growing child caffeine from anything but a medical source will never has as much effect on you as some basic over the counter hooch.

I think you are a victim of stupidity.
Well, I guess we should just expect baseless insults with no other intention then to hurt another's feelings at this point from you. I will again state for your general information that most people can’t be insulted over the internet… it just isn’t possible… you’re a text box. I would however ask that you at least try to make your insults relevant or descriptive... This is not a question of manners but more a question of shallow predictability. Insults unless very artfully crafted are nearly always short thoughtless one liners that everyone has heard a million times… at best it’s boring and at worst it describes the person leveling the insult more then their target.

With sincere love and the hope, but not the expectation, for peace, Karmashock.

[LardGibs]

Karma:

I feel like a hypocrite somewhat to tell you this; but you really need to make more effort to communicate with us rather than stoke your own ego by being unreasonably obtuse.

I think you could be a lot smarter in truth by making us realize it instead of baffling us with tightly woven rhetorical devices where you always emerge 'teh winn4r'

LG

[Larsson7]

uh...serving requires access to the substance. If you can't buy it, then it follows that you shouldn't be able to sell it. I mean... you can't walk into a store and say "i'm buying it for for the guy with white santa beard in the car (ie Jeff doing his best to look like an old man in his mother's car)" so it's obvious that you can't expect them to just 'trust' you.

You CAN handle cash below that age though... you just can't sell booze... restaurants that actually give you lots of access to booze will let you work for them if you're under 21... But asking to be a bartender is just too blatant.



I will ask again because it was ignored the first time... Would it be ok if people could drink at any age?... seriously?... it's your body... so why not let 5 year olds buy 180 proof mind rot? Why does it magically become ok at 17 or 21?... Remember that it was banned at ANY age during prohibition... to this day it's watered down by law in places like Utah. In fact, I think it’s watered down slightly for the whole country… at least beer is… unless you go for microbrew… but that’s a different story.


Getting shit-faced isn't mentioned anywhere. Having ANY alcohol in your system is illegal below the age... Drinking too much cough syrup will get the machine to flag you.


Handling weapons that you're rigorously trained to use and then deployed under an experienced officer is NOTHING like being able to drink any amount of alcohol, at any time, for any reason with the ONLY exception that you shouldn't be driving while intoxicated. I should further note that the military will allow even younger people to volunteer if the ranks are really thin and there is a serious war on. You could probably get away with 13 during the civil war.
Furthermore, ‘devastating’ weaponry isn’t going to go any farther then a general issue rifle as they’re sure as hell not going to put you in charge of anything expensive.
Additionally, your service will more likely involve packing and sorting weapons for the troops. If you join at a really young age get prepared to peal potatoes and clean the lantern at a training camp… someone has to do that and they’d rather not send you to the front (for many many reasons) so you’re it.

Your analogy doesn't work... try another.


The complexity of drinking is also immaterial. Snorting cocaine isn't prohibited because no one is smart enough to deal with the effects. There is no IQ test before someone lets you handle a gun. At least try to come up with something that is even remotely relevant to the question at hand.

The notion is that alcohol interferes with the development of the body and brain. Therefore it is prohibited until it is assumed that the individual has fully developed. It is true that caffeine and several other chemicals have negative effect on human development… but these are matters of arbitrary degree. As bad as caffeine is for a growing child caffeine from anything but a medical source will never has as much effect on you as some basic over the counter hooch.


Well, I guess we should just expect baseless insults with no other intention then to hurt another's feelings at this point from you. I will again state for your general information that most people can’t be insulted over the internet… it just isn’t possible… you’re a text box. I would however ask that you at least try to make your insults relevant or descriptive... This is not a question of manners but more a question of shallow predictability. Insults unless very artfully crafted are nearly always short thoughtless one liners that everyone has heard a million times… at best it’s boring and at worst it describes the person leveling the insult more then their target.

With sincere love and the hope, but not the expectation, for peace, Karmashock.


Seriously - go outside, get a girl and get laid.

I am not prepared to even begin and read what I will assume is a lot of huff and puff over someone being denied a job over semantics.

Seriously - post fucking cliffs rather than make us read total drivel.

[MVB]

While Karma on occasion makes excellent posts, Lard hit the proverbial nail on the head.

By organizing lengthy, well-organized rhetoric, Karma convinces himself that he sounds quite right in all regards. The uninformed reader might even come to the same conclusion. Instead of spending his intellect on succint, effective point-making, he wraps his points up in lengthy dissertations aimed at providing inherent loopholes for effective counterarguments to be technically caught up in.

Perhaps it could be considered effective debating, but it is ineffective real-world, efficient point-making. Rather than being at all effective in the argument, you cause half the people to think you're full of nothing but rhetorical bs sometimes (lard and I, though I mean no offense), and the other half don't even bother reading what you write (Angel, etc.). There are 0% who actually benefit from when you write things such as the above, because of reasons already stated.

A brain redirect would be helpful.

That being said, you have some good points; shorten them, make them more useful, and less rhetorical, and you might get somewhere.

[Karmashock]

Karma:

I feel like a hypocrite somewhat to tell you this; but you really need to make more effort to communicate with us rather than stoke your own ego by being unreasonably obtuse.

I think you could be a lot smarter in truth by making us realize it instead of baffling us with tightly woven rhetorical devices where you always emerge 'teh winn4r'

LG

First off... give me an example... I think I was extremely clear and very open.



I'd like just cite that you're telling me explain my argument in greater detail as that is the only way I could make someone 'realize' a point more effectively. Just hold that thought and read my next point.
==========================
Seriously - go outside, get a girl and get laid.

I am not prepared to even begin and read what I will assume is a lot of huff and puff over someone being denied a job over semantics.

Seriously - post fucking cliffs rather than make us read total drivel.
Here we have Angel complaining that my post was "too long"... he even makes a rather pathetic insult, which I can only assume he meant to 'hurt my feelings'... If he thinks he's insulting me with that high school mind rot then the only one getting a chuckle is me... though honestly it's so infantile that it almost makes me think I'm arguing with a bot. Ever argued with a bot? There are a few on the Internet... artificial IMers... they almost work... When I talk to them they tend to respond with outrageous outbursts... I asked one what time it was there and it thought I was making fun of it or something...



So what should I do?... Should I write in even more detail, as LG says? Or should I write less, as 'angel' says? I'm getting mixed messages here. Frankly, I'm not taking LG seriously on this until he posts an example (I at least need to know specifically what you’re talking about) and Angel is beneath consideration for many previously mentioned reasons.

Ideally, I'd like some more information from LG or someone else's input... Angel is of course welcome but won't be considered unless he makes an attempt at coherence.
========================
While Karma on occasion makes excellent posts, Lard hit the proverbial nail on the head.

By organizing lengthy, well-organized rhetoric, Karma convinces himself that he sounds quite right in all regards. The uninformed reader might even come to the same conclusion. Instead of spending his intellect on succint, effective point-making, he wraps his points up in lengthy dissertations aimed at providing inherent loopholes for effective counterarguments to be technically caught up in.

Perhaps it could be considered effective debating, but it is ineffective real-world, efficient point-making. Rather than being at all effective in the argument, you cause half the people to think you're full of nothing but rhetorical bs sometimes (lard and I, though I mean no offense), and the other half don't even bother reading what you write (Angel, etc.). There are 0% who actually benefit from when you write things such as the above, because of reasons already stated.

A brain redirect would be helpful.

That being said, you have some good points; shorten them, make them more useful, and less rhetorical, and you might get somewhere.
Cite an example... I can take that I wrote 'too much' but the rest of your point is tripe. My arguments ALWAYS have loopholes because I'm used to Internet quote tag arguments. I know how to write a post that you can't just pick apart. Call it self-defense… call it experience in the furnace. I know there are people that will disagree with me NO MATTER WHAT… so I make a point of being bullet proof.



So here is my challenge. Actually counter one of my points without these shadowy and baseless allusions. OR Actually ‘specifically’ cite what you are talking about? Don't do it from this post either... do it from THAT post. Did I rant? Sure... forums are for ranting... was I wrong? Prove it.

Until you do so, I'll hold that all I did was answer some basic points in great detail. It's finals and I'm used to writing things out ‘long hand’.


The way I see it you’ve got me coming and going… if I just say what I think… I get called a fag by some douche that has to read instructions to tie his shoes… if I explain the reasons for thinking what I do I get chewed out for turning people off with info.


What do you want?… do you want me to post one sentence about why the point of the previous poster was a thoughtless comment unworthy of our cave dwelling ancestors? Because I don’t know how to do that in one sentence without just handing them “learn to tie your shoes in three easy steps” book ‘with color illustration’…


I’m not stupid and I’m not tricking you. I got right to the point and explained every piece in detail. If you think I made steal trap that proved that I was right beyond all debate, then that’s because I was… I know it sucks when I’m right… I’m opinionated enough that I get enemies fairly quickly… it just burns whenever I sink one in… oh well…

There is a reason why war is a pure thing… war is real… in war arguments end with the loser’s head tied to the saddle horn of the winner. In a debate of words there are only opinions. So dishonesty gives people an impenetrable shield to hide behind… like children saying their gijoe didn’t get shot… yours did.

Infantile…

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[LardGibs]

shorter, simpler, as if you were writing for idiots :rolleyes:. We can't follow what you write, because your examples are needlessly specific and numerous, and you quote at least 4 posts in parallel.


Emulate Vonnegut's writing style, not Joyce's.

[Larsson7]

First off... give me an example... I think I was extremely clear and very open.



I'd like just cite that you're telling me explain my argument in greater detail as that is the only way I could make someone 'realize' a point more effectively. Just hold that thought and read my next point.
==========================

Here we have Angel complaining that my post was "too long"... he even makes a rather pathetic insult, which I can only assume he meant to 'hurt my feelings'... If he thinks he's insulting me with that high school mind rot then the only one getting a chuckle is me... though honestly it's so infantile that it almost makes me think I'm arguing with a bot. Ever argued with a bot? There are a few on the Internet... artificial IMers... they almost work... When I talk to them they tend to respond with outrageous outbursts... I asked one what time it was there and it thought I was making fun of it or something...



So what should I do?... Should I write in even more detail, as LG says? Or should I write less, as 'angel' says? I'm getting mixed messages here. Frankly, I'm not taking LG seriously on this until he posts an example (I at least need to know specifically what you’re talking about) and Angel is beneath consideration for many previously mentioned reasons.

Ideally, I'd like some more information from LG or someone else's input... Angel is of course welcome but won't be considered unless he makes an attempt at coherence.
========================

Cite an example... I can take that I wrote 'too much' but the rest of your point is tripe. My arguments ALWAYS have loopholes because I'm used to Internet quote tag arguments. I know how to write a post that you can't just pick apart. Call it self-defense… call it experience in the furnace. I know there are people that will disagree with me NO MATTER WHAT… so I make a point of being bullet proof.



So here is my challenge. Actually counter one of my points without these shadowy and baseless allusions. OR Actually ‘specifically’ cite what you are talking about? Don't do it from this post either... do it from THAT post. Did I rant? Sure... forums are for ranting... was I wrong? Prove it.

Until you do so, I'll hold that all I did was answer some basic points in great detail. It's finals and I'm used to writing things out ‘long hand’.


The way I see it you’ve got me coming and going… if I just say what I think… I get called a fag by some douche that has to read instructions to tie his shoes… if I explain the reasons for thinking what I do I get chewed out for turning people off with info.


What do you want?… do you want me to post one sentence about why the point of the previous poster was a thoughtless comment unworthy of our cave dwelling ancestors? Because I don’t know how to do that in one sentence without just handing them “learn to tie your shoes in three easy steps” book ‘with color illustration’…


I’m not stupid and I’m not tricking you. I got right to the point and explained every piece in detail. If you think I made steal trap that proved that I was right beyond all debate, then that’s because I was… I know it sucks when I’m right… I’m opinionated enough that I get enemies fairly quickly… it just burns whenever I sink one in… oh well…

There is a reason why war is a pure thing… war is real… in war arguments end with the loser’s head tied to the saddle horn of the winner. In a debate of words there are only opinions. So dishonesty gives people an impenetrable shield to hide behind… like children saying their gijoe didn’t get shot… yours did.

Infantile…

Love and Peace, Karmashock.


t fucking l,d fucking r

seriously - I am not reading this drivel.

[Karmashock]

shorter, simpler, as if you were writing for idiots :rolleyes:. We can't follow what you write, because your examples are needlessly specific and numerous, and you quote at least 4 posts in parallel.


Emulate Vonnegut's writing style, not Joyce's.
Then don't call me obtuse... according to you, I'm being the opposite.

I could back this up in a way that you wouldn't be able to counter it... but open it will remain...
=========================
t fucking l,d fucking r

seriously - I am not reading this drivel.
Hows this for short?
:stfu:
If you bitch at me for throwing short snipes around, I'll be forced to nail a dunce cap to your head.
L&P(cus' it's shorter), Karmashock.

[Ummon]

Two monks were bickering with regard to a flag.

One said: "The flag moves".

The other one answered: "It's the wind which moves".

By mere chance, the Sixth Patriarch was passing by. He told them: "Not the wind, and neither the flag. It's the mind which moves".

[Karmashock]

I am a tea cup.

[LardGibs]

You are a chamber pot.

I used obtuse, when I wanted the antonym verbose. Sue meh :thumbup:

I guess I'm done though, you don't really want to hear what we're saying, just play with your quote tags.

So feck off, I'm ignoring you.

[Karmashock]

You are a chamber pot.
rude comment...

I used obtuse, when I wanted the antonym verbose. Sue meh :thumbup:
I didn't know you made a mistake though... YOU typed the wrong thing and so I thought you meant something else. I didn't sue you, I took you at face value and addressed you just as you had posted. I called you on what I RIGHTFULLY assumed to be your claim.

I can't believe your sorry ass is trying to make YOUR mistake into mine! Terms like dishonorable and shameful come to mind... just fucking pathetic.

I guess I'm done though, you don't really want to hear what we're saying
You're a liar. In this statement you blow ANY credibility you had right away… you’re now just a cheap baldfaced liar. I have SPECIFICALLY asked you to EXPLAIN what you are saying! So what are you saying... that if I don't agree with your mistyped, unjustified, vague insults I must be unreasonable? You're a fucking joke. If ANYONE deserves to get ignored it is YOU! I have given you the respect of polite reasoned discourse... what have you shown me? Nothing. Vague comments that you refuse to justify... and now when I ask you for the THIRD time to justify them you ignore 'me'?

Hah! You've called for simple answers, well here is one... You're joke that isn't funny. Your pathetic attempt at claiming some fanciful high ground is disgraceful! You're like a cornered mouse that pretends to be a dog one moment before the cat strikes... Yeah right... *chews on LG's tiny skull*

Punk.


I could post a lot more on how completely dishonest this stunt was… but its all falling on unsympathetic ears… so whatever.

enjoy the Love of a good meal And the Peace of the dead, Karmashock.

[Shackled Phoenix]

Okay your pointless bickering is starting to piss be off, so stuff it please.

and karma:
Getting shit-faced isn't mentioned anywhere. Having ANY alcohol in your system is illegal below the age... Drinking too much cough syrup will get the machine to flag you

actually it was brought up by you when you said we all are just bitching because we can't drink. I have stated several times, that i don't really care to drink much. I have done it, do do it still in minor amounts once in a while, but personally couldn't care if i never drank again.

uh...serving requires access to the substance. If you can't buy it, then it follows that you shouldn't be able to sell it. I mean... you can't walk into a store and say "i'm buying it for for the guy with white santa beard in the car (ie Jeff doing his best to look like an old man in his mother's car)" so it's obvious that you can't expect them to just 'trust' you.
most teens have "access" to it simply by having parent's who drink. Working in a resteraunt that serves alchohol is pretty much the same environment. Alchohol is there, within reach, but you can't touch it. And hell, in most restaraunts even if you are 21+ you STILL can't drink while on shift.

Handling weapons that you're rigorously trained to use and then deployed under an experienced officer is NOTHING like being able to drink any amount of alcohol, at any time, for any reason with the ONLY exception that you shouldn't be driving while intoxicated. I should further note that the military will allow even younger people to volunteer if the ranks are really thin and there is a serious war on. You could probably get away with 13 during the civil war.
Furthermore, ‘devastating’ weaponry isn’t going to go any farther then a general issue rifle as they’re sure as hell not going to put you in charge of anything expensive.
Additionally, your service will more likely involve packing and sorting weapons for the troops. If you join at a really young age get prepared to peal potatoes and clean the lantern at a training camp… someone has to do that and they’d rather not send you to the front (for many many reasons) so you’re it.

Your analogy doesn't work... try another.

First of all, he said SERVE, not drink alchohol. Secondly, ever been through bartending classes? you are quite thoroughly trained, and in something a lot simpler than going to freaking war. Thirdly, you're wrong about not being sent to the front. Start checking your records on some of the deaths occuring in Iraq. Quite a few very young people have died, many under the age of 21. Not to mention Iraq has already claimed more reservist (IE less well trained) lives than any other war.


The complexity of drinking is also immaterial. Snorting cocaine isn't prohibited because no one is smart enough to deal with the effects. There is no IQ test before someone lets you handle a gun. At least try to come up with something that is even remotely relevant to the question at hand.

The notion is that alcohol interferes with the development of the body and brain. Therefore it is prohibited until it is assumed that the individual has fully developed. It is true that caffeine and several other chemicals have negative effect on human development… but these are matters of arbitrary degree. As bad as caffeine is for a growing child caffeine from anything but a medical source will never has as much effect on you as some basic over the counter hooch.

Actually it is prohibited because it is believed people under 21 aren't responsible enough to prepare for the effects of alchohol (IE, post designated drivers, STOP DRINKING after a point, etc). But that's beside the point, because once again he wasn't talking about drinking, he was talking about serving. I should imagine the complexity of the task of serving alchohol would figure into such a thing. because if age had nothing to do with complexity of tasks, well why not have 5 year olds run drill presses?

Once again karma, noone is actually talking about the consumption of alchohol, yet you wish to bring it up. I've seen you write some pretty intelligent stuff, but you missed the topic horribly with this post.


MVB said:
It's also a stupid thing, I think, to complain about. Ques, you have all the responsibility you could want. Insurance companies won't give you lower rate until you're 25 ... it's an issue of learned resopnse.
__________________

That's exactly my point. i've got all these responsibilities, yet I'm not treated as a responsible person. To me it's like going to work, for no pay. Either give me responsibilities and treat me as a responsible person, or treat me as an irresponsible person and take away my responsibilities.

Seriously, if people want to treat me like a kid until i'm 21, fine. Just give me the option to act like one.

[Karmashock]

I'm not rehashing stuff that I think I pounded home with crystal clarity. If you think I'm still wrong, then remain bitter on the topic. The simple fact is that MOST people believe that if you are prohibited from consuming it, then you should have restricted access. The only reason why you still have 'some' access to it at home is because it's impossible to even monitor let alone enforce.

Actually it is prohibited because it is believed people under 21 aren't responsible enough to prepare for the effects of alchohol (IE, post designated drivers, STOP DRINKING after a point, etc). But that's beside the point, because once again he wasn't talking about drinking, he was talking about serving. I should imagine the complexity of the task of serving alchohol would figure into such a thing. because if age had nothing to do with complexity of tasks, well why not have 5 year olds run drill presses?
First, that isn't true. 21 is specifically chosen as a number IN THE US because that is when it is assumed that growth has finished. This is a FACT. Perhaps in Canada you can drink at 17 because they are more concerned with behavior... in the US the concern was on harming the growth and development of children - look it up.
Second, if you can't use it, then you're not going to be able to sell it. The only group that I can think of that has access to things they're not supposed to use are doctors and pharmacist. I think they're the exception that proves the rule. Seriously, I can see you're bitter about not getting some bar job, but there are lots of other jobs and whining about not being able to serve alcohol is rather silly.

Once again karma, noone is actually talking about the consumption of alchohol, yet you wish to bring it up. I've seen you write some pretty intelligent stuff, but you missed the topic horribly with this post.
Nope, I'm just thinking the same way the people that wrote the law were thinking. I understand law... I know a lot about civics... when it comes to the US legal system, I'm extremely sharp.

Say something about modern art and I won't have an opinion... I know nothing about modern art... talk about the law and I know it backwards and forwards... and can give you the legal terms in Latin if you like.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This the FOURTH time I have asked the SAME question and EACH time everyone has pretended like I never asked. WHAT is the right age? Why have an age? Why not have there be no laws on this at all? What if I was raised in some Central European country or something where there were no booze laws? Lets say I had been waiting tables since I was 5 and wanted to do it at 7 in the US... I know what I’m doing and can even mix drinks... should I be able to?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
L&P, KS

[Ummon]

I am a tea cup.

Then why nobody drinks from you?

[Karmashock]

You'd have to have some taste ;)

[Critta]

You're a liar. In this statement you blow ANY credibility you had right away…

Karma... you never fail to amuse me :)

[Ummon]

Exactly, Karmashock my friend. You are missing the point, but your answer is correct.

The Greeks referred to that sort of statements as Tragic Irony. One of the classic examples of it is the Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, the scene where Oedipus investigating the causes of a series of catastrophes affecting his country, says "I will show the culprit of this divine anger", and infact he shows to BE the culprit, since he has married his mother and killed his father. Of course in ancient greek it's much better, because he uses the verb "phainomai", which means both TO PERSONALLY SHOW and TO SHOW ONESELF. But I guess you get what I mean. In all benevolence.

[Karmashock]

Karma... you never fail to amuse me :)
You really are a miserable wretch. A scrap worthy of stray dogs and lepers.

Bring a bit of light into the world and expire.
============================
Exactly, Karmashock my friend. You are missing the point, but your answer is correct.
Would you mind speaking clearly?... That post can have several different meanings...

Be clear.
L&P, KS.

[Ummon]

Be clear.


That'd be spoiling your fun Karma, you'll understand when it's time to.

[Critta]

You really are a miserable wretch. A scrap worthy of stray dogs and lepers.

Bring a bit of light into the world and expire.


Wow! That's tetchy even for you.

Surely amused is the opposite of miserable? I do admit I did leave you a "scrap" and you seem to have gone for it. So which are you, a stray dog or a leper?

I have no intentions of expiring any time soon. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Karmashock]

It doesn't take any talent, skill, or intelligence to be cryptic.

That kind of philosophy is the sort of thing I'd expect to come out of Bruce Lee or something... ie… the way to be good is to be bad; the way to go fast is to go slow; the way to do <something> is to do the <opposite of something>… I actually read some of it and it was sad hodo… great action actor... maybe a great martial artist (I wouldn’t know)... but not a great mind.


Anyway, take your time... I'll just take as random noise till you come up with something worth saying/listening to.
L&P, KS.

[Ummon]

You're a frightened child Karma, however intelligent. Wake up. I am moved to tell you this out of compassion, even though I know you won't understand.

[Karmashock]

Frightened child? You really had to be desperate an insult to sling that pile of crap at me.

First, I'm not frightened of anything here... or really in general... So that's just pure nonsense.

Second, Child? How? I've demonstrated as much maturity as anyone here.

Really, what you're trying to say is not that I'm a frightened child, but that you're the opposite... ie a grounded adult. Well, you have no grounds to claim that distinction.

As to me not understanding... How could ANYONE understand it? It makes no sense! You've explained nothing.


All you've done is throw out a sad unsupported comment in a futile attempt at ceasing the high ground. Which, unless you want to stop fucking around and actually engage, will be taken as your forfeiture.

L&P, KS.

[Shackled Phoenix]

Second, if you can't use it, then you're not going to be able to sell it. The only group that I can think of that has access to things they're not supposed to use are doctors and pharmacist. I think they're the exception that proves the rule. Seriously, I can see you're bitter about not getting some bar job, but there are lots of other jobs and whining about not being able to serve alcohol is rather silly.


I can sell pistols, yet by law i can't own, or possess one until i'm 21. In some states you can sell alchohol before you can drink it. Besides firearms and alchohol there's really not very much that is restricted sales based on age.

Nope, I'm just thinking the same way the people that wrote the law were thinking. I understand law... I know a lot about civics... when it comes to the US legal system, I'm extremely sharp.

Say something about modern art and I won't have an opinion... I know nothing about modern art... talk about the law and I know it backwards and forwards... and can give you the legal terms in Latin if you like.

This had nothing to do with the statement you quoted.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This the FOURTH time I have asked the SAME question and EACH time everyone has pretended like I never asked. WHAT is the right age? Why have an age? Why not have there be no laws on this at all? What if I was raised in some Central European country or something where there were no booze laws? Lets say I had been waiting tables since I was 5 and wanted to do it at 7 in the US... I know what I’m doing and can even mix drinks... should I be able to?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Noone has answered your question because the point of the post is not to define the specific age, but to wish for ONE SPECIFIC AGE, in which one becomes an adult.

I have said several times, i care not whether the age was 18, or 21, simply that there is no inbetween age, in which one is expected to be an adult, but not given the respect, or trust of one, as there is now.

[/<yle]

Well, The law says your an adult when your 18. Same for a lot of places around the world.

[Shackled Phoenix]

*slams head on table* yes i know that. yet until 21, even though i've now got the responsibilities of an adult, in many cases i am not treated as one.

[Karmashock]

I can sell pistols, yet by law i can't own, or possess one until i'm 21. In some states you can sell alchohol before you can drink it. Besides firearms and alchohol there's really not very much that is restricted sales based on age.
I doubt it. I've never seen anyone sell them that wasn't old enough to own.

This had nothing to do with the statement you quoted.



[quote]Noone has answered your question because the point of the post is not to define the specific age, but to wish for ONE SPECIFIC AGE, in which one becomes an adult.[quote]
But there IS a seperation in canada too! So what are you really talking about?

That's why I was bringing it up... you were comparing the US and canada.