|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
The DOTD (Debate of the Day) | by slayer | 2002-08-26 04:43:33 |
|
I smell a flame war, but here's my opinion: | by chuckab | 2002-08-26 05:10:42 |
|
I agree. | by plblark | 2002-08-26 05:43:59 |
|
A correction | by Maluga | 2002-08-26 07:19:50 |
| Hmmm... that makes sense |
by paradigmxp |
2002-08-26 10:49:58 |
Okay, not really. Raise the driving age to 21 so people can learn how to handle their alcohol. In case you have forgotten, there are people who don't drink, such as myself. If I had to wait another 5 years to get my license just because others want to drink, that would perturb me to say the least. Now you are starting to infringe on my rights because you want to give everyone the right to drink. The way it is kind of makes sense (driving age = 16, drinking age = 21). Let people learn how to drive sober before giving them the opportunity to drive while under the influence. Granted, the legal drinking age of 21 is purely theoretical. I would say anyone who wants to drink under the age of 21 does. I don't have any statistics to back up my next statement, but it wouldn't surprise me that between 30%-50% of accidents involving people under the age of 21 somehow involved alcohol.
Now, I'm not saying that age is the perfect test - I don't think anyone would. Personally, the ideal situation would be based on parents' permission. However, we have just as many irresponsible parents as we have irresponsible (pre)teens so that wouldn't solve the problem.
Just as a side note, not related to the post that I'm replying to: democracy != personal freedom == anarchy. Democracy is not about providing everyone with the ability to do whatever they want. It is about providing rights to its citizens for the common good of society. Rights under a democracy can not be assumed - they granted only by the government. Take 9/11 for example, people were upset with what happened and wanted the government to prevent it from happening again. However, people started complaining (not immediately but a couple of months later) about the measures that the government had put into place to help protect them (checkpoints in airports, legislation giving FBI more capabilities in doing surveillance, wiretaps, etc. is being challenged right now, etc.).
It's all about a balance - what rights are you willing to have/give up in order to live with a certain level of security. I, personally, don't mind the current state of things because I believe that the government has tried to create a decent balance. If you want to live completely free and be able to do whatever you want, go buy an island and set up your own nation/state because I don't want a country that everyone has complete freedom due to the fact that certain freedoms infringe on my freedoms. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
