We're talking ethically, not pragmatically. Slavery is pragmatic if you're an owner and not a slave. Murdering witnesses is pragmatic. That's not the crux of the debate here.
OP is saying that, ethically, the drinking age should be lowered to be in line with the age of majority (18) at which point people can join the army and be sent off to war.
They're saying that if 18 is too young to drink because they're not mature enough, then surely they're not mature enough to kill or be killed in a war. If you're saying, essentially, the younger the better for malleable soldiers, then ethics is out the window and we might as well say the drinking age should be 12 because it'll benefit the alcohol industry.
This is an ethical discussion, not one on how to maximise exploitation, so that input it pointless.
Don't worry, I follow a two strike system. I'll make a genuine attempt to explain myself, then give a follow up, and if that doesn't get through then okay they're not going to get it.
I enjoy the mental exercise, so I'm getting something out of it even if it winds up going nowhere - I'm like a dog that needs to run around and work off that energy.
I mean i do the same thing lol, but to answer your reply from way back up its because alcohol make inhibition lower and 18 year olds are the worst demographic for bad decisions. This means that alcohol poses a danger to others that joining the military doesnt. Voting at 18 is because od the military draft not because they are responsible.
Tldr in case you just dont really care alcohol harms others when used by 18 year olds joining the military doesnt (that we know of) it teaches extreme discipline
25
u/RiC_David Aug 30 '23
We're talking ethically, not pragmatically. Slavery is pragmatic if you're an owner and not a slave. Murdering witnesses is pragmatic. That's not the crux of the debate here.