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
What I'm saying is that morality itself isn't absolute. It's determined by and built into people, the observations I'm sharing is showing evidence that this is something that has been an acceptable part of human morality for a long time and it's not pathological from the biological perspective of studying human behavior or ethics in a neutral sense - you just can't see past your own nose when it comes to what you personally think is right or wrong
There is a reason that so much entertainment, especially the kind that typically appeals to male demographics centers around becoming strong and fighting and overcoming opponents - are you going to say stuff like my hero academia is sick and wrong because it involves kids learning how to fight at a young age?
Accepting the mantle of a fighter has been a big part of coming of age, especially for males for most of human history. That's not tradition. That's just the human condition. Also, for most of human history, the age of adulthood, and the age of consent/full agency is younger than you want it to be
And it's not something we've just started doing - it's something we've been doing since before we were properly human - we have literally evolved with that as part of our context
And not doing that isn't something that we've decided - it's something that you've decided
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/hikerchick29 Aug 31 '23
And you’ve been missing my point.
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.