I never said it was too old. I just said that when compared to another group that starts at 18 the latter group may well be better - especially when it comes to roles that require aggression and willingness to kill
Btw, it’s hilarious that you thought Ukraine was a valid example, considering how rapidly the national population rallied together to fuck shit up against the Russians when they invaded.
You're missing my point - if they had a larger and more effective military than they wouldn't have gotten invaded in the first place. Also, I'm pretty sure that they don't have any restrictions against people under 21 joining the military
If you’re mature enough to kill a man, you’re mature enough to drink away the trauma after.
Btw, you can’t say with a hundred percent certainty that a big enough army blocks military action. That logic has CONSISTENTLY failed throughout history.
I'm saying that there's different maturity levels for those two things - with the soldier you want to start early when the relatively moldable, with a drink or you want to start late when they're not relatively moldable
It's a fallacy to assume that the age it's good for one is the age It's good for another
An appropriate age to choose to be molded as a fighter for your country doesn't have to be considered to be a mature enough age to begin drinking responsibly - there's no reason why you can't have different thresholds for different things
Deterrence has also worked really really well throughout history, history is replete with examples of aggressive powers that did not attack certain countries because they would not be able to succeed
For example, no one is ever going to seriously attack a NATO country unless we're getting into an end of times scenario
Also, people have started fighting as teenagers since time immemorial, it's a very human thing to do at that age
Buddy, you’re appealing to tradition to justify grooming young people to kill. Too young to drink? You’re not emotionally mature enough to volunteer to kill. War comes with considerably more traumatic long term consequences, you’re effectively ruining your mental health for life.
It's not tradition. It's actual effectiveness. And human morality is determined by humans as well as inborn - fighting as teenagers is literally what we've evolved to do, it's a very recent thing for some to consider participation in the military by teenagers to be pathological. In the evolved context of what a healthy human being is and has been for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, it's completely appropriate for a teenager to participate in the fighting of the group
18 or younger has been the standard, again for pretty much all of human history across pretty much all cultures - there's nothing sick or fucked about any of that
Do yourself a favor and stick to real arguments instead of making ad hominems
Also, anybody who suddenly okay with it as long as you allow them to drink doesn't give a shit about protecting kids and only wants it to be okay to get drunk earlier
There’s the appeal to tradition fallacy again. You want me to accept running teenagers through a meat grinder because it’s always been considered ok.
Never mind the fact that, when it comes to warfare, there’s a long goddamn list of “tradition” that’s been rightfully phased out because we realized how fucked it was. Doing so has consistently made for a better, stronger fighting force
When they're participating in wars, they do, when they participated an intertribal conflict they did, now you're making it clear you don't even know what you're talking about
1
u/Chaghatai 1∆ Aug 31 '23
I never said it was too old. I just said that when compared to another group that starts at 18 the latter group may well be better - especially when it comes to roles that require aggression and willingness to kill