It simply amazes me how immature some people can be. Can't have a simple debate without getting pissed because people disagree with their PoV. As I said, if you don't want a comment, don't post it in a public entry
( Read more... )
well, the person could've referenced the article without understanding it, therefore not being pro-drinking-age-of-eighteen but rather anti-sc-alcohol-policy
( ... )
And all I did was weigh that side of the argument, regarding new policies and not lowering the drinking age. Hell, I even agreed that stricter policies aren't the answer. However, this person decided to say I have no opinion because I don't know what its like there now, and that I made "irrelevant and annoying" comments regarding the drinking age when that wasn't the focus of the original post. As you can see though, that's obviously the theme of the referenced article.
Yeah.. it was talking about McGill and how US Citizens go to college there and how they go nuts with the drinking the first semester and as soon as they realize that grades could possibly be affected by overendulging in their newfound freedom... they stop.
To me, that's a "pro" for a drinking age of 18.
My only thoughts on the drinking age being 18 is that maybe people would grow up faster. But then again... maybe not.
Yeah, and that is the basis of why I don't think it should be lowered...the maybe and the maybe not. There's no hard evidence that situations would improve if the drinking age was lowered. Sure they could regulate it more among college students, but what about high school? Would they lower to 15 if that's the case?
On the contrary, evidence against the fact from the 60's, 70's, and early 80's (when it was 18) makes a strong case against lowering it. The drinking was obviously more of a problem back then, and has improved since.
And while I don't agree in principal to the driving at 18/drinking at 18 being a bad combination, in theory its a decent argument. Give "kids" one thing at a time to gain responsibility with. They create bad situations enough...no need to give them any help. LOL.
I did, thanks for reminding me. However, I must say that I wrote about being less critical (not "making an ass out of myself"). In the case of the comments I left in your entry, I wasn't being critical. Just stating an opinion and the other side of the coin. But, we won't be able to see that, since you deleted them.
Is it my fault that, for seemingly no reason at all, you got wicked pissed and called my comments "irrelevant and annoying," when the exact opposite was the case?
And if you only wanted to point out one section, why not just copy and paste it instead of leading people to the whole article, which is CLEARLY based on lowering the drinking age to get better control of college drinking?
Comments 10
Reply
And all I did was weigh that side of the argument, regarding new policies and not lowering the drinking age. Hell, I even agreed that stricter policies aren't the answer.
However, this person decided to say I have no opinion because I don't know what its like there now, and that I made "irrelevant and annoying" comments regarding the drinking age when that wasn't the focus of the original post. As you can see though, that's obviously the theme of the referenced article.
Reply
To me, that's a "pro" for a drinking age of 18.
My only thoughts on the drinking age being 18 is that maybe people would grow up faster. But then again... maybe not.
Reply
On the contrary, evidence against the fact from the 60's, 70's, and early 80's (when it was 18) makes a strong case against lowering it. The drinking was obviously more of a problem back then, and has improved since.
And while I don't agree in principal to the driving at 18/drinking at 18 being a bad combination, in theory its a decent argument. Give "kids" one thing at a time to gain responsibility with. They create bad situations enough...no need to give them any help. LOL.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
I did, thanks for reminding me. However, I must say that I wrote about being less critical (not "making an ass out of myself"). In the case of the comments I left in your entry, I wasn't being critical. Just stating an opinion and the other side of the coin. But, we won't be able to see that, since you deleted them.
Is it my fault that, for seemingly no reason at all, you got wicked pissed and called my comments "irrelevant and annoying," when the exact opposite was the case?
And if you only wanted to point out one section, why not just copy and paste it instead of leading people to the whole article, which is CLEARLY based on lowering the drinking age to get better control of college drinking?
Reply
Who is this "airhead" you speak of?
Reply
Leave a comment