If you're actually in the Armed Forces, whether by volunteering or being drafted, then sure, you should be allowed to drink. I'm pretty sure some states have laws that you can drink under 21 if you're in the Armed Forces. But an 18-year-old shouldn't be saying, "Hey man, I could be in the army if I wanted to, beer me." Yes, you could be in the army (or Marines, etc), but you're not. Shut up and wait a few years, it won't kill you.
OK. How about this then? If you're old enough to decide whether or not to join the Armed Services, then you're old enough to decide whether or not to have a beer.
You're always old enough to decide whether or not to break the law. You (not you, specifically, the general you) could be in the army... but you're not, so you can't use it to argue anything about your life.
I'm not between the ages of 18 and 21 either, but the argument still stands.
I did say I wasn't talking about you, specifically. Besides, we're going in circles - your first response to me was basically the same thing the original post said, which I already responded to.
My bad. So help me out here... You seemed to be saying that in order to use an organization in an argument, you needed to be part of that organization. Is my understanding correct?
No, I'm saying that if you choose not to join an association, you can't use your eligibility to join that association in an argument.
Thanks. Perhaps my original statement was poorly worded. Would you agree that the maturity level needed to decide whether or not to join the armed services should be sufficient in deciding whether or not to have an alcoholic drink? The validity of that statement should not be affected by one's association with the armed services.
Always happy to clarify. Honestly, I haven't personally done the research to agree or disagree. I believe that one of the reasons the drinking age is 21 is because that's when the brain's pretty much done developing, which has nothing to do with maturity; drinking at even 19 or 20 could stunt your brain's growth. Of course, that's only if I'm not mistaken. If the brain's sufficiently developed at 18 to not be damaged by alcohol, then sure, I don't really have anything against lowering the drinking age. But my main problem with the Armed Forces argument, I guess, is that eligibility to join the Armed Forces is based on your physical peak, and the drinking age is based on development. Also, there's a maximum age to join the Armed Forces; if you're old enough to drink when you're old enough to enlist, doesn't it follow that when you're too old to enlist, you're too old to drink? I mean, obviously it doesn't, but that's why I don't think it's a great argument.
Hasn't this been POTD?
That is the same example always given. Using your logic, doesn't it make as much sense to just raise the age that you can join the army? 21 to drink, 21 to join the army. Problem solved? Or would you still be unhappy since you don't care about the age for army, you just want to legally drink at a younger age.
I was merely pointing out what seems like an inconsistency to me. I have no horses in this race. Either one - lowering the drinking age to 18 or raising the age one can enlist to 21 - would resolve the inconsistency.
because responsibility comes with age right? there are stone adults who can't be trusted with alcohol.
It takes a lot of responsibility to join the army as well.