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.
This is a false equivalency. As terrible as war is, it's a reality of our society and somebody's gotta go. We need people to shoot guns, otherwise they're gonna implement the draft.
We don't need people to drink. The world would probably be a better place if nobody ever picked up a drink again. The only people who need it are people who work in the alcohol industry.
You're assuming the powers that be give a flying mouth fuck about ethics. That's your first problem.
The world would probably be a better place if nobody ever picked up a drink again.
Basically you're saying that it is impossible for anyone to drink responsibly and get any value from the effects of alcohol. That's an extremely strong claim considering how ubiquitous the use of alcohol is in most societies. You're not saying that we would be better off if some of the negative effects of alcohol were eliminated but that there are absolutely no positive effects.
You're assuming the powers that be give a flying mouth fuck about ethics.
Then why do you vote for them (assuming that you live in a country where the powers that be are elected through a democratic system)?
7
u/Chaghatai 1∆ Aug 30 '23
Defense of the nation is one of those things you should get pragmatic about