http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 … _151230.nl
While I adore Hawaii, this sort of thing ticks me off. I don't know whether the left or right agree with it or if it is neutral, your responses will allow me to make that determination.
There had always been this no-mans land of 2nd class citizenship between the ages of 18-21.
I dislike double standards and hypocrisy, as far as I am concerned, if 18 is old enough to bear full adult responsibility, the ultimate being serving and sacrificing ones life in military service, then they are certainly old enough to drink, smoke, vote, etc. With responsibility must come the accompanying privileges and prerogatives that we all come to expect being of age of the majority.
When I was at that age stage, I complained, marched etc. Everybody says, 'just wait till you are 21'. Why? People say that certain perogatives/responsibilities are different and are best left to those over 21. Who determines that? These people between 18-21 are entitled to vote, who has the authority to relegate voting citizens to second class status, imposing things upon them without their imput.
Whew, I have had my daily rant, so where do you fall on this issue and why?
Actually, there are answers, though you (and I) may not like them.
People this age do not have fully developed brains - they are unable to reason to a logical conclusion and then use the conclusion. Instead their emotions over run any reasoning ability and they do whatever they want to do.
Military - we need soldiers that when told to "Charge!" will rear up and charge. Wait until that reasoning ability is developed and the response is likely to be "Hey, wait a minute - if I charge, I'm gonna die!" - not a good thing when a charge is needed. The military needs people that can learn, but not really think and reason.
Votes - maybe I'm just cynical, but politicians prefer emotional arguments to hard facts. Right down the alley of someone incapable of reasoning from facts.
But at the same time if we allow them to decide for themselves whether to drink and drive, or smoke, they will make the wrong decision because wants override what feeble reason is there. So we don't do that, for their own good.
Bottom line: we will use them, and destroy them, as needed while protecting them from themselves when we can. Nice, huh?
Not enamored with that assessment. Having served my time for my country, and using my brain during that time, I am curious why you would say it. If I remember correctly, although it may not be in the oath, we were all well aware of the fact that we were not supposed to believe we should follow any order we believed to be ethically or morally wrong. I would prefer to have people in uniform who do think and reason. Who do ponder the whats and the whys of the orders. Who will say no when that is the correct response.
That's what the psychologists tell us - that the part of the brain that reasons logically does not develop until the early 20's. But perhaps you misunderstand - there is a world of difference between comparing an order to what we've been taught is right or wrong and following a "right" order to nearly certain death. Which is sometimes what our military must do
Like you, I thought myself fully capable of reasoning as a late teen, but that doesn't mean I was. Looking back at the others in my school and neighborhood, I'd have to say that few if any of us were truly capable of reasoning and using the conclusion to dictate actions that were contrary to what we wanted. Something that adults do every day of their lives.
L to L, I think that he is engaging in a piece of sarcasm this time.
Really? I wouldn't have thought so. I think a lot of people think military are supposed to follow orders, unquestioningly.
I hope not, there are such things as 'unlawful order'. We have the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Many of the Nazi ringleaders that swung at Nuremberg trials in 1946 presented the same excuse, good soldiers following the order of the Fuhrer. Did not work out well for them, as they were told, 'that we must not cheat the hangman'.
You may not be enamored with the assessment but I side with Wilderness in that the our brains do not mature until we are in our thirties and of course some never do. Feeding these immature brains is fairly easy by injecting patriotism and fear to protect the country is relatively easy. I'm not saying patriotism isn't a noble trait to have but neither is murdering people to prove it is. The politicians have a marvelous time with their flowery speeches and in many cases distortions of the facts to drum up support for their so called patriotic flourishes that inspire many of our youth to join and lay down their young lives for them. Is this fair especially when we know they lack the maturity to do what is best for themselves by restricting their rights to smoke and drink? It is a duplicitous reasoning and wrong.
 http://phys.org/news/2010-12-brain-full … s-40s.html
Couldn't agree more. I've heard some irritatingly ridiculous and downright ill informed reasons for supporting military action in this day and age. Sometimes, patriotism is standing up against it and calling it out for what it is; not feeding it.
I'm with you. If 18 is the age of maturity; all legal vices should be allowed. I don't have any problem with saying no to cigarettes and alcohol on college campuses, but military bases seems foolish. If you are old enough to carry a rifle into combat for your country; lighting up should be allowed.
Makes sense to me that the minimum age for cigarettes and alcohol would be the same. They're both drugs, they both have negative side effects, both have addictive properties (though one much more than the other). I can't see why an 18 year old would be allowed to smoke the most addictive drug on the planet, but not be able to drink alcohol. If you're going to pick an age when you think someone is capable of making those decisions for themselves then be consistent. Whether that's 18 or 21, well, I'm tempted to say 21 but can't say I feel super strongly about that. Where I live the legal age for everything is 18 so it's familiar although I understand the developmental basis for making it an older age.
It may be that the biggest difference between tobacco and ethanol is that smokers don't climb into a car and kill other people. Drunks do, and it then becomes a question of protection from the young users of whichever drug they choose.
My point Aime F, it should be either all 18 for the age of majority or 21, we can't have it both ways. Otherwise, it is not fair in my opinion.
21 is an arbitrary number why don't they make it 20 because it is a nice round number and easier to remember
by aka-dj6 years ago
I constantly see the accusation on this forum of believers not having the ability to think for themselves. IE Think freely.Does this imply, then, that ONLY non-believers, and atheists are the ONLY ones who are...
by Castlepaloma6 years ago
What's legal in the World About 33% of people are Christian Illegal in one countryAbout 20% of people have had a homosexual experience at least once, illegal in 76 countries100% of the world, alcohol and tobacco are...
by Dear_hubs6 years ago
It has been a gray area for a long time that in the UK, sex below the age of 16 is illegal and many frown on it. I'll be honest, I lost my virginity at 15, however I am not a criminal, I have lead a community driven...
by David8 years ago
Should the United States Government legalize marijuana? What do you think?
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
...furthermore, He is behind the logical aspect of the world. In other words, He invented logic! We merely discovered / uncovered it!
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.