noonereal Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: I could go with no drinking age that would be fine by me Can you explain what you mean by the first part the reason kids today grow up so late is a by product of our countries economic success Briefly, young adults do not have the same needs they had in the past. Here is how it occurred: A women needed to get married to be secure. No longer true. A women can work and support herself now. Guys don't need to get married to have regular sex because the women are not married, not monogamous . As a result kids are being born much later in life to their parents and fewer kids are being born. This has two effects. One, the parent are much more wrapped up in their kid. Second, parents are much better established economically so the kid has less sacrifice. This translates into a delayed maturity. Think of a family from just two generations ago. 6, 7 or 8 kids were normal. Think of the interaction (learning) and sacrifice (sharing) that this caused vs a one kid family today. Lot's of studies on this but this is the laymen's breakdown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: the reason kids today grow up so late is a by product of our countries economic success Briefly, young adults do not have the same needs they had in the past. Here is how it occurred: A women needed to get married to be secure. No longer true. A women can work and support herself now. Guys don't need to get married to have regular sex because the women are not married, not monogamous . As a result kids are being born much later in life to their parents and fewer kids are being born. This has two effects. One, the parent are much more wrapped up in their kid. Second, parents are much better established economically so the kid has less sacrifice. This translates into a delayed maturity. Think of a family from just two generations ago. 6, 7 or 8 kids were normal. Think of the interaction (learning) and sacrifice (sharing) that this caused vs a one kid family today. Lot's of studies on this but this is the laymen's breakdown. I can understand and agree with this. especially with the parents being completely wrapped up in their kids lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 This is exactly what I was talking about. This is what happens when you let the students run the school http://www.kentucky.com/news/nation-world/national/article205235894.html#fmp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFORDGAWOLVES Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 1 hour ago, noonereal said: or raise the legal age across the board top 21, which is what I would favor. (Kids today grow up much slower.) But I do agree with you, consistency across the board is preferable. Like having one set of laws not 50. Simplify the tax code, and all of this lovely discourse will end. Or will it? haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 34 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: This is exactly what I was talking about. This is what happens when you let the students run the school http://www.kentucky.com/news/nation-world/national/article205235894.html#fmp with all respect BC, what doe s this have to do with students running a school? My guess is you are trying to say that by not somehow restraining kids from planned peaceful protests that one out of 3,000 plus might turn out wrong? As if the actions of one means you should not be denied your rights? Say someone shot up a school, now you should not be allowed to have a gun? See how you can't use a sample group of one (or a few) to represent the whole? (it's a logical fallacy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, noonereal said: with all respect BC, what doe s this have to do with students running a school? My guess is you are trying to say that by not somehow restraining kids from planned peaceful protests that one out of 3,000 plus might turn out wrong? As if the actions of one means you should not be denied your rights? Say someone shot up a school, now you should not be allowed to have a gun? See how you can't use a sample group of one (or a few) to represent the whole? (it's a logical fallacy) Obviously wasnt peaceful.....Hopefully these students were locked up. Again they let the inmates run the asylum. Isnt that what some people are proposing. Didnt the Fl governor just sign a bill about not letting people exercise their 2nd amendment rights and under circumstances they will come get your guns. I do applaud the schools that wanted a normal school day and stated that any student walks out on school time will be disciplined. When i was in HS the other high school in town walked out and protested a certain condition in the school. As far as i remember those students were not allowed to attend prom or graduation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, HSFBfan said: Obviously wasnt peaceful.....Hopefully these students were locked up. Again they let the inmates run the asylum. Isnt that what some people are proposing. Didnt the Fl governor just sign a bill about not letting people exercise their 2nd amendment rights and under circumstances they will come get your guns. I do applaud the schools that wanted a normal school day and stated that any student walks out on school time will be disciplined. You are free to applaud as you like but what FL did was not as you describe and you are committing a logical fallacy to support your position. It's fair to take the position you take but it is not OK to claim as you did and support it with an exception. Follow? (honest, just trying to explain) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 1 minute ago, noonereal said: You are free to applaud as you like but what FL did was not as you describe and you are committing a logical fallacy to support your position. It's fair to take the position you take but it is not OK to claim as you did and support it with an exception. Follow? (honest, just trying to explain) Were not sure if anything else happened. Now also Dylan Roofs sister was also nabbed threatening to shoot the protesters if I read the article right. So thats already 2 instances of peaceful i guess. Guess what there would be 0 instances of anything happening if it was a normal school day where kids went to class. Teachers taught something. Maybe this would have been a great time to teach civics and have a great open discussion about touchy subjects such as this. Dont you agree? Instead they walked out and accomplished nothing. No discussion no learning. Like i said this could have been a great time to explain your feelings and explain why you feel that way within a classroom setting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: there would be 0 instances of anything happening if it was a normal school day I doubt that. Ever hear of 3,000 plus schools having a normal school day with no incidents of any kind? LOl but true. and, obviously, Roof's sister behavior has nothing to do with this either. I think this was a very valuable civics lesson, don't you? Honest. Is there not time for a peaceful protest and a discussion afterwards? They are hardly mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: I doubt that. Ever hear of 3,000 plus schools having a normal school day with no incidents of any kind? LOl but true. and, obviously, Roof's sister behavior has nothing to do with this either. I think this was a very valuable civics lesson, don't you? Honest. Is there not time for a peaceful protest and a discussion afterwards? They are hardly mutually exclusive. Typical day when an American flag is ripped down in schools?? Never heard of such a thing I hardly believe that when those kids went in there was an open discussion about this topic. Im sure they went back to their normal school day. No I dont because they didnt learn anything. They walked out of school. All they learned was if you dont like something walk out. Thats not how life works. You deal with the circumstances and you move on. NOR i respect you having a conversation with me about this subject but where never going to agree. So it doesnt matter what either of us say at this point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 1 minute ago, HSFBfan said: Typical day when an American flag is ripped down in schools?? Never heard of such a thing I hardly believe that when those kids went in there was an open discussion about this topic. Im sure they went back to their normal school day. No I dont because they didnt learn anything. They walked out of school. All they learned was if you dont like something walk out. Thats not how life works. You deal with the circumstances and you move on. NOR i respect you having a conversation with me about this subject but where never going to agree. So it doesnt matter what either of us say at this point We don't need to agree. It might be good to support your points in a less "free wheeling" way. Don't take this the wrong way but it could benefit you in many ways in the real world. I can learn from you without agreeing with you. I hope you can do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: We don't need to agree. It might be good to support your points in a less "free wheeling" way. Don't take this the wrong way but it could benefit you in many ways in the real world. I can learn from you without agreeing with you. I hope you can do the same. Im trying. Not easy when i basically disagree with everything you say. Ill say this I am a very big supporter of free discussion in a classroom setting without all of the structure of tests and grades. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Im trying. Not easy when i basically disagree with everything you say. Ill say this I am a very big supporter of free discussion in a classroom setting without all of the structure of tests and grades. I really need to get some work done! lol I have a stack of stuff here to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Troubador Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 2 hours ago, HSFBfan said: Yes I know but the age of adulthood is 18 in this country and is the reason why I argue for the drinking age to be lowered back to 18 Highway funds. States will never lower the purchase age back to 18. Can’t afford paying for their roads any other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: I really need to get some work done! lol I have a stack of stuff here to deal with. Sorry to hear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, Hardcore Troubador said: Highway funds. States will never lower the purchase age back to 18. Can’t afford paying for their roads any other way. Is that really the reason?? How does an older drinking age pay for highway funds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Troubador Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, HSFBfan said: Is that really the reason?? How does an older drinking age pay for highway funds? National Minimum Drinking Age Act. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987). google-machine it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said: National Minimum Drinking Age Act. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987). google-machine it. Talk about a way to circumvent the 21st amendment. They are using the general welfare argument in order to rule the way they did while saying that congress is not allowed to set a minimum drinking age and should be left up to the states Even if Congress, in view of the Twenty-first Amendment, might lack the power to impose directly a national minimum drinking age (a question not decided here), § 158's indirect encouragement of state action to obtain uniformity in the States' drinking ages is a valid use of the spending power. Pp. 483 U. S. 206-212. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Troubador Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Talk about a loophole Even if Congress, in view of the Twenty-first Amendment, might lack the power to impose directly a national minimum drinking age (a question not decided here), § 158's indirect encouragement of state action to obtain uniformity in the States' drinking ages is a valid use of the spending power. Pp. 483 U. S. 206-212. You are not focusing on what’s relevant. States are free to get their fiscal houses in order (including the good old-fashioned, freedom-loving, god-fearing, Confederate States) and say “no thanks” and pay for their own roads. They can set the age back to 18 if they want. But they don’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 Just now, Hardcore Troubador said: You are not focusing on what’s relevant. States are free to get their fiscal houses in order (including the good old-fashioned, freedom-loving, god-fearing, Confederate States) and say “no thanks” and pay for their own roads. They can set the age back to 18 if they want. But they don’t. So basically because they use federal funds for highway the federal government stipulates a drinking age even though they are not allowed to do that under the 21st amendment and it should be left up to the states. And so if states took care of it themselves they can dictate how they want their states to run due to no federal funding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 This is from one of the 2 judges who dissented on the opinion: Aside from these "concessions" by counsel, the Court asserts the reasonableness of the relationship between the supposed purpose of the expenditure -- "safe interstate travel" -- and the drinking age condition. Ante at 483 U. S. 208. The Court reasons that Congress wishes that the roads it builds may be used safely, that drunken drivers threaten highway safety, and that young people are more likely to drive while under the influence of alcohol under existing law than would be the case if there were a uniform national drinking age of 21. It hardly needs saying, however, that, if the purpose of § 158 is to deter drunken driving, it is far too over- and under-inclusive. It is overinclusive because it stops teenagers from drinking even when they are not about to drive on interstate t is under-inclusive because teenagers pose only a small part of the drunken driving problem in this Nation.See, e.g., 130 Cong.Rec. 18648 (1984) (remarks of Sen. Humphrey) ("Eighty-four percent of all highway fatalities involving alcohol occur among those whose ages exceed 21"); id. at 18651 (remarks of Sen. McClure) ("Certainly, statistically, if you use that one set of statistics, then the mandatory drinking age ought to be raised at least to 30"); ibid. (remarks of Sen. Symms) ("[M]ost of the studies point out that the drivers of age 21-24 are the worst offenders"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbiafan Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 23 hours ago, HSFBfan said: Has nothing to do with anything. As a minor you have no say in your home at schools or in society in general. Thats why your a minor. The people that are considered adults in this country and as of now that is at the age of 18 and older will make said decisions for ourselves and if you have kids your kids. Same in schools teachers principals and the like will make said decisions. it is not up to the student to give their opinions. Now if your in a college and want to have an open discussion fine because they are 18. So the politicians can keep putting their checks first and kids should just hope to not be gunned down because of ignorance from people in charge? Glad I'm graduated then because i was literally at risk every day of my life apparently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbiafan Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 When the bloody hell did the leaders in this country start losing control of protecting the bloody future The kids shouldn't be blasted, the government should for not fulfilling a simple job of providing a safe learning environment State and federal government has dropped the ball so much i can barley trust them to do anything right My confidence in my government coming through is thinner than a tight rope, the best days of this country was when citizens could trust the government The trust is thin now and so is the prosperity of the nation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, Columbiafan said: So the politicians can keep putting their checks first and kids should just hope to not be gunned down because of ignorance from people in charge? Glad I'm graduated then because i was literally at risk every day of my life apparently No you werent. I bet you thru your entire school career and same with me you never ever thought you could be killed in school. Idk if you were in school during columbine but I was. It never ever crossed my mind. Too busy in class doing sports and living my life to worry about that kind of stuff. Some of you people really sound like any of this stuff legit crossed your mind as a student or even now at work. people ask me in my position at work am i worried about getting shot. The answer is absolutely not. Never crosses my mind for one second. I saw your 2nd post so i will say if you wanna blame the FBI than go ahead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbiafan Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: No you werent. I bet you thru your entire school career and same with me you never ever thought you could be killed in school. Idk if you were in school during columbine but I was. It never ever crossed my mind. Too busy in class doing sports and living my life to worry about that kind of stuff. Some of you people really sound like any of this stuff legit crossed your mind as a student or even now at work. people ask me in my position at work am i worried about getting shot. The answer is absolutely not. Never crosses my mind for one second. I saw your 2nd post so i will say if you wanna blame the FBI than go ahead Damn right i will They get a tip and what happened? Nothing, someone dropped the ball there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.