Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset0

like 0

[]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?" ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game" ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise.", ">\n\nProbably a proud boi loser too" ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise.", ">\n\nProbably a proud boi loser too", ">\n\nWow we never saw this coming /s." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise.", ">\n\nProbably a proud boi loser too", ">\n\nWow we never saw this coming /s.", ">\n\nBut of course. Freedom loving repugnantcans." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise.", ">\n\nProbably a proud boi loser too", ">\n\nWow we never saw this coming /s.", ">\n\nBut of course. Freedom loving repugnantcans.", ">\n\nLot of idiots are drawn to the lure of politics…" ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise.", ">\n\nProbably a proud boi loser too", ">\n\nWow we never saw this coming /s.", ">\n\nBut of course. Freedom loving repugnantcans.", ">\n\nLot of idiots are drawn to the lure of politics…", ">\n\nIf he was a Democrat Republicans and Faux News would say that he and his party are violent, but he's a Repubblican, so nothing wrong." ]

[ "Oh shit. This is getting weirder. We don’t need weirder.", ">\n\nIf his incompetence wasn’t so staggering I’d be really upset with him. He just shot republicans in the foot once more. Image is only the most important thing so no big deal.", ">\n\nAt some point, going all in on white supremacist / domestic terrorist ideologies makes image impossible to control. That may be the stage we’re entering now.", ">\n\nbets on how they'll take this and if it ever sees the light after the mods on any of the gopper subs?", ">\n\nAll Republicans are Domestic Terrorists now.", ">\n\nThat was literally a banner at CPAC, so yes, the shoe fits.", ">\n\nCan we start giving the losers participation trophies so they can feel like they won something? Their constant whining and refusal to acknowledge and admit defeat is ridiculous , they literally think “it’s my right “ regardless of how shitty they sre\nIf you can’t stand losing, don’t play the game", ">\n\nThat. Is. Really. A. Surprise.", ">\n\nProbably a proud boi loser too", ">\n\nWow we never saw this coming /s.", ">\n\nBut of course. Freedom loving repugnantcans.", ">\n\nLot of idiots are drawn to the lure of politics…", ">\n\nIf he was a Democrat Republicans and Faux News would say that he and his party are violent, but he's a Repubblican, so nothing wrong.", ">\n\nThe Party of Law and Order." ]

[]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns.", ">\n\nThe problem is that from infancy to adulthood, our body matures at different rates. There's liver for alcohol, reproductive for pregnancy, brain for cognitive, etc. So while our brain may still need time to develop, our reproductive have already started.\nWhat you're proposing is that as long as one part of the organ matures, the child should be able to do everything else such as drive a vehicle. But some girls get their period as early as 9years old, but they haven't hit their growth spurt for height (where they go from 4'-9\" to 5-4\") so now they went from what's medically considered a short person (under 4-10) to being a normal height person. Cars are designed with specific requirements, there's a minimum and a max height. So a person that's 4' tall behind the wheel getting into an accident will be severely injured compared to a 5'-10\"\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. (Yes yes I know how weak of an argument this is considering how ignorants Americans are as adults) but the thing that children have yet to developed it (so there's potential) vs an ignorant adult who chooses not to educate themselves." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns.", ">\n\nThe problem is that from infancy to adulthood, our body matures at different rates. There's liver for alcohol, reproductive for pregnancy, brain for cognitive, etc. So while our brain may still need time to develop, our reproductive have already started.\nWhat you're proposing is that as long as one part of the organ matures, the child should be able to do everything else such as drive a vehicle. But some girls get their period as early as 9years old, but they haven't hit their growth spurt for height (where they go from 4'-9\" to 5-4\") so now they went from what's medically considered a short person (under 4-10) to being a normal height person. Cars are designed with specific requirements, there's a minimum and a max height. So a person that's 4' tall behind the wheel getting into an accident will be severely injured compared to a 5'-10\"\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. (Yes yes I know how weak of an argument this is considering how ignorants Americans are as adults) but the thing that children have yet to developed it (so there's potential) vs an ignorant adult who chooses not to educate themselves.", ">\n\nI think again you are missing the point, in the sense that you in your own words.\n\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. *\n\nAs I said, that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea for them to be forced through a pregnancy or bear, possibly take care of a child or decide to put the child up for adoption… who may one day ask where’s their biological birth-givers or donors. \nAn adult can choose to be uninformed, but they have that privilege to do so. We have to deal with that on other terms, but a pregnant child almost by default cannot choose to be uninformed. It’s a young person who may not be in high school nor middle school in some cases. Being forced to carry a pregnancy in many cases, probably unwanted. Which is pure cruelty." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns.", ">\n\nThe problem is that from infancy to adulthood, our body matures at different rates. There's liver for alcohol, reproductive for pregnancy, brain for cognitive, etc. So while our brain may still need time to develop, our reproductive have already started.\nWhat you're proposing is that as long as one part of the organ matures, the child should be able to do everything else such as drive a vehicle. But some girls get their period as early as 9years old, but they haven't hit their growth spurt for height (where they go from 4'-9\" to 5-4\") so now they went from what's medically considered a short person (under 4-10) to being a normal height person. Cars are designed with specific requirements, there's a minimum and a max height. So a person that's 4' tall behind the wheel getting into an accident will be severely injured compared to a 5'-10\"\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. (Yes yes I know how weak of an argument this is considering how ignorants Americans are as adults) but the thing that children have yet to developed it (so there's potential) vs an ignorant adult who chooses not to educate themselves.", ">\n\nI think again you are missing the point, in the sense that you in your own words.\n\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. *\n\nAs I said, that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea for them to be forced through a pregnancy or bear, possibly take care of a child or decide to put the child up for adoption… who may one day ask where’s their biological birth-givers or donors. \nAn adult can choose to be uninformed, but they have that privilege to do so. We have to deal with that on other terms, but a pregnant child almost by default cannot choose to be uninformed. It’s a young person who may not be in high school nor middle school in some cases. Being forced to carry a pregnancy in many cases, probably unwanted. Which is pure cruelty.", ">\n\nWar is an extreme circumstance that is likely never going to happen to you, in particular at that age (3 years for it to occur in the US at least, between 18-21)\nNearly everything else you suggested happens everyday. These are not the same.\nThe majority of what you listed we don't allow because we acknowledge the risks involved and as a society decide to protect the vulnerable youth from them, or acknowledge they are not well equipped to make these decisions for themselves.\nIn war, there's a chance you will die, whether you attempt to protect your country or not." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns.", ">\n\nThe problem is that from infancy to adulthood, our body matures at different rates. There's liver for alcohol, reproductive for pregnancy, brain for cognitive, etc. So while our brain may still need time to develop, our reproductive have already started.\nWhat you're proposing is that as long as one part of the organ matures, the child should be able to do everything else such as drive a vehicle. But some girls get their period as early as 9years old, but they haven't hit their growth spurt for height (where they go from 4'-9\" to 5-4\") so now they went from what's medically considered a short person (under 4-10) to being a normal height person. Cars are designed with specific requirements, there's a minimum and a max height. So a person that's 4' tall behind the wheel getting into an accident will be severely injured compared to a 5'-10\"\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. (Yes yes I know how weak of an argument this is considering how ignorants Americans are as adults) but the thing that children have yet to developed it (so there's potential) vs an ignorant adult who chooses not to educate themselves.", ">\n\nI think again you are missing the point, in the sense that you in your own words.\n\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. *\n\nAs I said, that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea for them to be forced through a pregnancy or bear, possibly take care of a child or decide to put the child up for adoption… who may one day ask where’s their biological birth-givers or donors. \nAn adult can choose to be uninformed, but they have that privilege to do so. We have to deal with that on other terms, but a pregnant child almost by default cannot choose to be uninformed. It’s a young person who may not be in high school nor middle school in some cases. Being forced to carry a pregnancy in many cases, probably unwanted. Which is pure cruelty.", ">\n\nWar is an extreme circumstance that is likely never going to happen to you, in particular at that age (3 years for it to occur in the US at least, between 18-21)\nNearly everything else you suggested happens everyday. These are not the same.\nThe majority of what you listed we don't allow because we acknowledge the risks involved and as a society decide to protect the vulnerable youth from them, or acknowledge they are not well equipped to make these decisions for themselves.\nIn war, there's a chance you will die, whether you attempt to protect your country or not.", ">\n\nMy Opinion my personal opinion is if i as a under age female am forced to carry out a full term pregnancy that my body may not even be able to handle due to numerous health issues i should have the option to legally drop outta school and get help and not have my parents put in jail for something they cant control" ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns.", ">\n\nThe problem is that from infancy to adulthood, our body matures at different rates. There's liver for alcohol, reproductive for pregnancy, brain for cognitive, etc. So while our brain may still need time to develop, our reproductive have already started.\nWhat you're proposing is that as long as one part of the organ matures, the child should be able to do everything else such as drive a vehicle. But some girls get their period as early as 9years old, but they haven't hit their growth spurt for height (where they go from 4'-9\" to 5-4\") so now they went from what's medically considered a short person (under 4-10) to being a normal height person. Cars are designed with specific requirements, there's a minimum and a max height. So a person that's 4' tall behind the wheel getting into an accident will be severely injured compared to a 5'-10\"\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. (Yes yes I know how weak of an argument this is considering how ignorants Americans are as adults) but the thing that children have yet to developed it (so there's potential) vs an ignorant adult who chooses not to educate themselves.", ">\n\nI think again you are missing the point, in the sense that you in your own words.\n\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. *\n\nAs I said, that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea for them to be forced through a pregnancy or bear, possibly take care of a child or decide to put the child up for adoption… who may one day ask where’s their biological birth-givers or donors. \nAn adult can choose to be uninformed, but they have that privilege to do so. We have to deal with that on other terms, but a pregnant child almost by default cannot choose to be uninformed. It’s a young person who may not be in high school nor middle school in some cases. Being forced to carry a pregnancy in many cases, probably unwanted. Which is pure cruelty.", ">\n\nWar is an extreme circumstance that is likely never going to happen to you, in particular at that age (3 years for it to occur in the US at least, between 18-21)\nNearly everything else you suggested happens everyday. These are not the same.\nThe majority of what you listed we don't allow because we acknowledge the risks involved and as a society decide to protect the vulnerable youth from them, or acknowledge they are not well equipped to make these decisions for themselves.\nIn war, there's a chance you will die, whether you attempt to protect your country or not.", ">\n\nMy Opinion my personal opinion is if i as a under age female am forced to carry out a full term pregnancy that my body may not even be able to handle due to numerous health issues i should have the option to legally drop outta school and get help and not have my parents put in jail for something they cant control", ">\n\nThe draft is so that the country isn’t conquered and every citizen loses their life or at least their livelihood and all assets. The draft is a desperate move to save the country and has nothing to do with the maturity of those being drafted expect that they are more capable of shooting an enemy than a toddler. \nDrugs and alcohol isn’t being kept away from children just because adults can and they like to be mean and gatekeep things. They are kept away because those substances are especially dangerous to immature brains that are still developing combine with the immaturity to likely not dose responsibly. Letting someone destroy their brain on recreational drugs just because the country was threatened is horrible logic. \nIf there is an emergency and you have to leave your 4 year old home alone because you have to rush someone to the hospital, you don’t also give them a loaded gun because they get to do all the mature adult things now." ]

[ "You can just shorten your post and say that you believe the draft age should be tied to the legal age of adulthood - which it already is.", ">\n\nNot really, because there are things you can do 18, while others you have to wait until 21. My pov is why should selective service be given preferential treatment over these other activities: (I also included carrying a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, and sex abuse). \nSuch as drinking or purchasing alcohol, even though you are a complete independent adult in many cases.\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearmsin some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\nYou cannot adopt a child, even in some cases as an adult, yet you can have won as a child.\nYou can go to bars, nightclubs, or strip clubs at least not legally.\nYou also cannot gamble in a casino, legally rent car, be a pilot, work in certain professional sports leagues, get your tubes tied, or…buy a hotel room.", ">\n\n\nYou can’t carry a concealed weapon nor buy firearms in some states until 21, but you can apply to military or be drafted into a conflict. That’s almost a superb contradiction.\n\nYou aren't walking around with a concealed loaded handgun when in the military. You aren't walking around with a loaded rifle. You aren't walking around with any weapon 90% of the time. \nWhen you do hold a weapon, it is after months of training, phycological evaluation, and a background check. You are handed the weapon without ammo, and you train that way for weeks before going to a tightly controlled firing range. You are handed your rounds, and you wait quietly while being watched by superior officer until it is your time to fire. You go, follow all instructions or get your ass kicked, fire your rounds, verify your weapon is clear, pick up your brass, and return to the staging area. Then you hand your weapon over to a superior who stores it in a locked and guarded vault while the remaining ammo is taken to the other side of post to another locked and guarded vault. If you are found to still have your weapon, any ammo, or even any expended brass after this process, you are Court Martialed or given an Article 15, and then removed from service. \nAlso, any firearms privately owned by soldiers or their families residing on base must be stored in the armory, not your house.\nNot so much of a contradiction.", ">\n\nYeah people don’t really realize how much the military baby-steps when it comes to firearms, and pretty much anything else. There are step by step guides with pictures for pretty much everything, sometimes there are even footprints painted to tell you where to stand. They don’t just hand you a loaded rifle on your first day", ">\n\nSeeing how strict the military is when it comes to firearms makes it even stranger how easy it is to get a firearm for civilians. In my state, being over 21, I can go buy a gun, carry it concealed around town, and home home and leave it on my coffee table. No classes or licenses required.", ">\n\nYour view is incorrect because you have illogically connected three disparate ideas. Individually, we can consider whether people (of all ages) should be drafted and, if so, what age is appropriate. That age doesn’t logically have to be connected to whether or not someone (of any age) should be forced to give birth or, if we decide so, what age that would begin. Similarly, neither of those are necessarily linked to the. Age that a minor gains majority rights. Heck, there even reasons to permit some rights early while waiting until a later age for others, because there can be different reasons for different things. \nTL;DR: None of this stuff is elated, we can decide them on their own, your view needlessly connects them, so you should change your view.", ">\n\nAgain, if a person has a right to join the military or is mandated to sign up for selective service. You could be forced to go into an active conflict or dangerous assignment at any given moment after training and even during training. \nYou also are allowed to carry a deadly and have a position of authority over civilian in particular situations.\nEven in other countries, soldiers and other people under 21 are allowed to do things that they couldn’t do at home. Which is ridiculous and championed by fallacies in some cases. \nMy whole point is you can do these things, but you can’t purchase alcohol, cigarettes, but hotel rooms in certain states, or go to strip clubs. There’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\nIf one is at the age of 18 and carries greater consequences, if you mess up. The other ones aren’t exactly like that, especially smoking, purchasing a hotel room, gambling, or going to strip clubs.\nAll the bad things that can happen from those is pretty individual-centric. \nThough, if we are talking about inexperienced and immature people entering the military. I can’t possibly know why the other activities should have age restrictions.\nThe military carries far greater responsibilities and consequences than pretty much anything I listed.", ">\n\nDid you mean to reply to me? Your comment simply repeats what you said in your original post without addressing anything I said in my comment.\nI said that you are entangling several concepts that clearly are separate. A comment that responds to that would try to connect these unrelated issues. The closest your comment gets to that is here, I think:\n\nThere’s no consistent reason these should have mandates, especially people can navigate society as independent adult and have adult responsibilities.\n\nRespectfully, this sentence specifically, and the rest of your comment in general, are really difficult to understand. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. \nMaybe a clarifying question would help. What common relationship between being drafted, forced births, and majority rights necessitates that they all be allowed/restricted at the same age? Why those things, but not others like minimum school ages, drivers licenses, etc?", ">\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do. I think these comparisons are perfectly reasonable to make when asking the question “why do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?” I think OP has concluded that these things are logically inconsistent and therefore wrong, so highlighting that by drawing these comparisons is a fair way to make their argument. \nNot saying I agree with OP’s conclusions, but I don’t think their argument is inherently flawed just because of these comparisons.", ">\n\n\nOP is looking for logical consistency in what the US does/does not allow young adults to do/not do.\n\nIf that is OP's point, they didn't make that clear. They do not mention the United States in either their OP or their reply to me. I get the idea that OP is arguing that there is an inconsistency, but OP isn't really explaining why they should be treated consistently. As a random example, I don't think that the age that people should be allowed to begin public school should be the same age that people are allowed to get a driver's license. The reasons for allowing one are different from the reasons for allowing the other.\nNow, I'm not saying that there's no way to connect these concepts. You did a great job of explaining how \"responsibility\", as a concept, could be a shared reason for permitting (or not permitting) all three. I don't think that OP has made that argument, though. I've read through their OP and their reply to me, and their arguments for why these are related seem really unclear. There's likely something I've misunderstood about OP's reply, but I don't get it.\nNow, to your point:\n\nwhy do we trust an 18 year old with the IMMENSE responsibility of being in the military or having a child, but we don’t trust them with the—arguably smaller—responsibilities of the other things listed?\n\nI agree that, responsibility-wise, it's important to make sure that we don't give too much responsibility to people before they are ready. Being drafted into the military is a huge responsibility, far more than, for instance, watching R-rated films, so on a purely responsibility related scale, we should allow watching R-rated films before allowing people to join the military. In fact, this is already the case, so it's kinda weird that OP used this as an example. \nEither way, there are 2 counterarguments. The most obvious one is that people can disagree about responsibility. I'm not the biggest fan of this argument, especially for something as benign as R-rated movies, but there are reasonable arguments about civilian weapon usage and military weapon usage that could make one or the other have a higher level of responsibility.\nThe better argument, I'd say, is that \"responsibility\" is only one axis that we should consider age restrictions on. For instance, there are probably significant societal benefits from making students take (insert your least favorite class here). Even if we felt that the student was responsible enough to make the decision on their own, we as a society could decide that, regardless of their ability to be responsible, we all would benefit more if they didn't have that choice.\nOr developmental biology. Let's say that alcohol has a significant impact on development before a certain age, but otherwise people of that age are responsible enough for other decisions, like voting. It could make sense to restrict alcohol on the basis of biology (if it were true) while allowing voting on the basis of responsibility.\nAll this to say, you've articulated a reasonable argument that I can see reasons for and against. I don't know if OP believes the same thing, though.", ">\n\nOh, I fully agree with you! My interpretation of OP's argument(s) could certainly be wrong, as you said, their argument is confusing to pin down in the first place. \nYour argument about how there ought to be multiple axes (axiis?) of consideration beyond just \"responsibility\" is truly great. Couldn't have said it better myself! I think the \"responsibility alone\" argument is compelling, but ultimately incomplete.", ">\n\nThe main point I can think of is that being an \"adult\" is a spectrum and also bureaucracy is hard\nIt is much easier from the governments perspective to put a binary rule of over or under 18/21 without going into the nitty gritty of creating bigger problems which it needs to enforce its rules upon\nlets begin with over the counter medicine and many other points of similar traits, having a 18 year old or over rule helps the clerks do their job in an effective way without making too many mistakes. Simple check if ID is above 18, if there was a specialty clause for conscripted adults or parents then a separate ID would have to be made or increase the span of an ID to show parenthood which some might find to be an invasion of privacy. This means that the government would need a new body for verification of childbirth(which costs the tax payer money) then the person would have to get a new ID or a new card\nAllowed to transition to a different gender or change their name: now this is a tricky one I can't argue against it from my own perspective, but Again this has to do without an arbitrary line in the sand that they have put in my opinion. They are discussing whether or not the brain has \"finished developing\" and giving birth of drafting has little to do with this\nnow unto Choose not to go to school or Choose not to participate in any sports or recreational activities they don’t want to participate in: As far as i understand forced to go into school is not about being an adult but rather about as a person one has to go to school, so it has nothing to do with being an adult.\nBe allowed to have car insurance: As I don't know where this applies (the country where im from it does not apply to my knowledge) the main factor is probably not legal but rather that the insurance company themselves made the rule due to the high risk, changing the law to prohibit it would do very little as they would just make the insurance so expensive due to high risk that it would be inconsequential if you ask me.", ">\n\nYou are correct in many ways, yet again. In the states, we mandate that all young men must sign up for selective services as soon as they turn 18, or allow them out right.\nFor young adults to have insurance, it is really expensive. Of course, but a cap can easily be placed on premiums, while if a teen driver has a good driving record there rate’s should ultimately and continue to decrease. Though, I feel similar for all adults. Be fair in premiums to individuals. If you are a reckless or careless driver your rates increase anyway. It can be fairly applied to young adults.\nCompulsory education does help society in many ways, but again if we’re requiring kids or young adults to take on certain adult task, like having children in childhood. There’s very few activities that are as consequential as that. Even with the selective service at 18, or being able to join the military is a pretty big decision and holds much more risk than almost any activity I named. And, it’s superbly professional occupation with grave responsibilities.", ">\n\nI think it more has to do with insurance companies using statistics to set rates, the cost is soo high becasue even though some younger adults/teenagers are safe most are not as such they don't want to go down that road, adding a cap wouldn't create any safety for the young adults due to the fact that the premium would be too high for the adult to consider as usefull(this does not change my standpoint that they should be able to have insurance but rather that it would cost them too much). From the perspective(a little harsh I know but I'm taking the view point of the insurance company who ultimatley will make the decision) of the insurance company someone who is not using protection and getting themselves pregnant (this is complete speculation but I would say a majority of unwanted teen pregnancies are due to this) probably are in a very high risk group according to them. \nAgain regarding compulsory education it has nothing to do with age or level of adulthood but rather comes down to the fact that \"adults\" already have completed it, they don't get to (as far as I know) skip out on mandatory school because they turn eighteen or any age for that matter unless of course there is some outstanding reason that labels the person in question as unable to finish their school degree", ">\n\nNot sure where you are from, but as far as I am aware, selective service and drafts for the army normally only affect those over the age of 18. Similarly in most places, abortions are legal for girls under 18 and in a lot of places, they don't even have to inform the parents.\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion, surely the logic follows that they also shouldn't be allowed to do most things on your list.", ">\n\n\nOn the abortion point though, if the mentality is that someone is not of the mature enough age to make their own decision about having an abortion\n\nThen they aren't old enough to give birth either.", ">\n\nI 100% agree with you. I was just following the logical flaw in OPs argument that if someone isn't deemed mature enough to decide for themselves on an abortion, then they also are not mature enough to do most of what was on OPs list.\nPersonally I believe that, if a minor is pregnant, they should have the say on whether or not to keep the baby, no one else.", ">\n\nSomething I always found curious and somehow incoherent is the fact that Americans can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink alcohol at 21.\nIn Italy,Spain, France, Greece, Holland ( and I'd guess in most countries of the world) at 18 you unlock all those privileges at once, cause at that age you should be relatively mature and educated.\nNow, back to the topic. I don't think that having an early pregnancy or joining the military, makes you more \"educated\" than the average person. In fact I'd argue the opposite", ">\n\nMy point is that \"joining the military/having a pregnancy\" doesn't make said person more educated (which is in line with what OP says). Which is very different than stating that people who join the military/have early pregnancy are less educated.\nOne is about post- said-experience, the other is about prior-said-experience", ">\n\nStatistically, someone joining the military makes them more educated than the average US person. Your point was that someone joining the military is unintelligent and uneducated based on your construct and bias; based on the data, you are incorrect.\nYou can continue arguing the opposite, but you are factually incorrect.", ">\n\nI fear I haven't expressed myself properly.\nI'm not saying that someone who decides to join the military is less mature/educated.\nI'm stating that after the experience of being a soldier, said person is not becoming more mature/educated compared to any other experience", ">\n\nIt seems like you've found an incredibly long way of saying that you think that the age of conscription shouldn't be below the age of legal adulthood. I agree, and it isn't. Only adults get conscripted and only adults have the franchise. I don't see certain freedoms or entitlements being withheld until an older age to be a problem, provided that full political participation is available to the draftees.\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws?", ">\n\nI don't really understand the significance of a child being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy versus an adult. Do you think that only legal adults should be subject to laws\nYour chances of dying or developing some type of health problem increases the lower the age is, as much as the higher end of aging. Miscarriages are more likely, while pregnant person could easily die, if proper care and treatments are not given or available.\nI know some people will disagree on abortion and “pro-life”, but pre-pubescent to barely pubescent child being pregnant is already an outcome that has a lot of awful consequences. But, if it was a product of rape, incest, or sexual assault, it’s already about the worst outcome that alot of women in those situations. It believe it’s a nightmarish scenario that a child has to deal with it’s basically cruel and unusual punishment in that scenario.\nIf she decides to have the child for any given reason or is force to. It does not help society in most given ways, especially when a perpetrator may be able through slight chances to gain parental rights. Remember, there are 15 whole states who give no such exceptions to abortions in these cases. These same 15 states are amongst the worst in child care, child mortality rates, infant mortality rates, maternal deaths, single parenthood, fewer options for employment, much more likely not to finish school, or even being a greater contributor to society.\nAt this point, I wouldn’t be concerned about youth, especially those near or around 18 drinking, smoking, gambling, consuming sexually explicit material, any purchase hotel rooms, insurance liabilities, etc. \nWe have an underclass of children or single mothers or parents who have children, yet are children themselves.", ">\n\n\npre-pubescent ... child being pregnant\n\nthat is literally and utterly impossible.\nAlso, the point with abortion seems weird. I don't know anybody that argues that abortion should be age restricted. People are generally for or against abortion rights, the age of the mother is essentially meaningless information that has no bearing on the overall conversation of whether abortion should be legal or not.", ">\n\nI think referencing the draft is a bit of a red herring, as it hasn’t been used in half a century and is unlikely to be used again given how wars are now fought and the political uproar it would cause. The rest of what you’re talking about seem to be decisions a parent is making for their minor child. You’re essentially advocating for punishing parents for decisions you wouldn’t personally make for your kid and in a way that is also just a back door to taking away parental rights. If I decide I’m not going to buy my kid a motorized car to ride around in, does that mean they are now eligible for a driver’s license? Because that’s the logic you’re using. \nMoreover as a society, we’ve decided these age restrictions are appropriate. What is the argument for taking them away other than a minor child is being told they have to listen to their parents and they don’t like it?", ">\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25. But teenagers are able to make many adult decisions. Especially when those decisions are predetermined and not in the moment. Adulthood is more like a slow transition than an instantaneous one. And the law should reflect that. Driving, for instance, can happen many places at age 16. Running for president can't happen until you're in your thirties, however.", ">\n\n\nYou are arguing that adulthood for everything should be the same thing. But mentally and physically that is not how adults. The frontal lobe doesn't finish developing till age 25\n\nHow is making the choice whether you want to go kill people less consequential than the choice to have a beer? By this logic you shouldn’t be able to join the military until you’re 26", ">\n\nSorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nI'm not sure what your point is. Most countries that use conscription do it from the age of 18 and at that point people also get their full adult rights. If some country does use younger soldiers then that's considered using child soldiers and prohibited by international law. I don't understand why would you fix that problem by giving children all kinds of other rights instead of raising the draft age to 18.", ">\n\nAgain, the draft age is 18, but does vary from country to country. Being in the military, you pretty much are given adult rights, mostly. \nThere’s a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency to how these ages are monitored. \nAgain, I say this in the sense that many young adults live in or run their household or expected to be providers. All of that is ok until want to do certain adult activities or processes, but are restricted from doing it because of an arbitrary age of 21.", ">\n\nWhich activity and which country? I can't think of any activity in the country where I live or in the country where I was born that was limited to 21. \nThe only thing that comes to mind is that some car rental companies refuse to rent cars to young adults (under 25). It might suck, but it's a private decision by those companies and not a law. There are also some offers only for senior people, but I don't see that worth fighting against.\nIf you're railing against some individual country that does that, then you should at least name it in your CMV as now it looks like that any country using conscription has set the age of conscription lower than that when it gives young people all legal rights.\nI'd say far worse problem with the conscription is that in democracy it's mainly decided by men who have already done the service and women (who don't have to serve) and the cost is directed only to young men who in most cases haven't even had a chance to vote (it would require there to be an election after they've turned 18 but before being conscripted). So, basically 99% of the adult population forces the 1% to do service to them.", ">\n\nThe vast majority of teen pregnancies are not instances of some fluke where proper contraception failed, but from them simply being too ignorant or too careless to take the right steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.\nI don't think a demographic who largely can't think clearly about that should be given access to things like voting, drugs, and a whole host of other things you listed.", ">\n\nYou really think it's a good idea to give someone stupid enough to have kids out of wedlock and underage more responsibility? Havent they shown a lack of critical thinking already?", ">\n\nAgain, if someone is forced to have a child under the age of consent or in a situation a crime was committing against them.\nGive them more responsibility, that’s sort of the point of them not going through a full-pregnancy or be forced to take care of a child, or give up the child for adoption to an unknown family who may be one day confronted with the question who are “my parents.” \nAlready shown a lack of critical thinking? Critical thinking is an important quality to have and be used but these situations were not created or taken care of by any “critical thinking” adults. I think anyone who forces a child to carry a fetus to term for unusual reasons does not have the best intentions for a minor to begin with. \nCritical thinking is irrelevant to responsibility, especially if we expect children to bear and make decisions for other children, yet also be a few years away from being able to serve in the military or be drafted into an armed conflict, when they are as people say still developing.\nEven in the midst of that, we allow kids to work for both paid and unpaid labor, and the moment they make money or profit. They have to pay compulsory taxes, but they aren’t competent enough to vote. \nThis creates an exploitable class of people, because they cannot defend themselves in a way that an adult can, because they don’t have the same rights. They can’t join most union (and that’s only if one is available), or be able to find good legal representation against their employers, if their families or the children, themselves cannot afford a decent attorney or none at all if that area doesn’t provide those services. Also, as I stated kids cannot vote, because they are under 18. \nBut, we can tax them to the max, and if they don’t pay their tax rates. We can legally hold them liable. Not their parents, the child themselves.\nYet, they cannot vote — “taxation without representation.” No critical thinking required.", ">\n\nYou could’ve just said the draft should be illegal", ">\n\nIt sounds like you're trying to argue that you think it's unfair that young people are disallowed certain things until some age we decide on and labeling that as some sort of fallacy or contradiction. Being unfair is fine, the goal of these laws isn't to strive for consistency or fairness across age groups. They are put in place for what voters think is best for society.", ">\n\nWhy do you believe this?", ">\n\nBecause, if one is old enough to fight or serve in the military or go through an unwanted pregnancy. Then, they should have most or many full-rights as an adult. The list of things I point out primarily.", ">\n\nA ten-year-old can get pregnant. The stance that you want us to take seriously is that ten-year-olds should be able to do all those things you listed? The argument you're making, which you want us to belive is logical and well thought out, is that an elementary school child should be treated like an adult in basically every way?", ">\n\nYes, if they have to carry a child to term for arbitrary reasons that can have a profound affect on their livelihood, lifestyle, and even their own mortality. \nPretty much every thing I said carries less significance than going through a pregnancy, especially under conditions where consent is unclear or there was a serious crime committed against a minor.\nNo, I don’t, because kids are clearly underage for most of those things. But, a pregnant child and young people who are quite aware or what could happen in military is a OK. \nEven, the thing with kids being able to work, yet be responsible for taxes and deductions when they can’t vote is a serious enough concern in my book to question the ethics of this madness and clear exploitation of children.", ">\n\nWhen I asked if you thought an elementary school child should be treated like an adult and the first word of your response was \"yes,\" I stopped reading. You're a fucking nutjob.", ">\n\nI've never seen someone come closer to saying \"I want pedophilia to be legal\" than this guy. Can't wait for him to get arrested and claim, \"She already got pregnant, so she's an adult.\"", ">\n\nNearly all of these items are contradictions between federal (selective service) and state law (alcohol, employment, abortion, etc). \nIt’s a state’s rights issue. They are delegated all powers not held by the federal government to do what they want with. So states choose to do different things with their ages of adulthood. \nNot saying states are right about what they choose, but that’s the foundational reason you see these discrepancies.", ">\n\nBecoming an adult is a process, not an overnight occurence. Just because you're old enough to drive a car doesn't mean that you're responsible enough to rent one. Just because your brain is developed enough to make a big decision doesn't mean that it's safe for it to be exposed to alcohol.", ">\n\nIt's just one teeny tiny correction. There is no draft. There has not been one since the last year of the Vietnam War. The military does everything it can to prevent using a draft because they do not under any circumstances want draftees. Other than that carry on.", ">\n\nIt is just too much to go from being a kid with no rights or responsibility at all to one day passing and you have several situations in a short span of time occur and expected to know what to do because you're an \"adult\" now...you're not really, you're a kid going through rites of passage in phases as it should be.\nPeople don't respond well to abrupt changes as the past couple years have shown.", ">\n\nCan’t change that view. It’s way too out there lol. Suppression of the masses is good in many ways, mostly because human kind is horrible and needs boundaries to distinguish the crazies from those-who-may-be-crazy-if-given-the-chance. Don’t agree. Sorry.", ">\n\nTL;DR: some things aren’t worth discussing in terms of age, and those things may be inappropriate at any age. Moreover, unrelated responsibilities aren’t equitable.\nI don’t understand your post for a couple reasons, but some things aren’t a great thing for society—for example, a draft and forcing kids, or anyone else, to give birth—but that really has nothing to do with age. There’s no reason to try to sort any of this out from the perspective of age, though I get your intent: what’s fair is fair in terms of responsibility.\nThat’s not how or why some things are the way they are. Without getting too exhaustive, the reason why people can’t drink alcohol at 18 is for two functionally true things: having kids be able to drink the same age as the legal driving age is a bad combination of responsibilities to levy on someone at one time; and, the second reason is biological—people aren’t done growing at 18, and alcohol can negatively effect growth. Just as importantly, though, society rallies around that first point in earnest because, to protect everyone, sometimes laws need to exclude people at a certain development age, and that’s why statements like, “if someone can join the army, they should be able to drink,” are preposterous: why? Why would this be the case? They’re completely unrelated, and while the statement itself may be true, it’s not a good argument for why these two age limits are what they are.", ">\n\nHonestly none of the things you listed are the same as the military or any of the reasons anyone would participate in a draft. What you’ve offered is a list of things we largely control for the greater good of our society because we’d like people more capable of making nuanced decisions to be making those decisions. A lot of them are a very very big deal. I’ll take transitioning as a personal example. That’s something I’ve thought through very very thoroughly because of how it effects my health, it’s not like taking a Tylenol when I know I feel better in an hour. \nNow look at a war zone. The decision to shoot or not to shoot has to take place in an instant if you want to survive that. You’re literally stuck making that decision completely impulsively. Who’s going to be more impulsive than an 18 year old? Plus the last time the US was actively drafting people was June 1973. Every single war past then has been staffed strictly with people who have volunteered to be in the military. You can fully choose if you serve or not in the US. There’s also severe standards to get them to take you. You’re not in good enough physical shape? You’re out. Sleepwalking? Your out. Deaf? Your out. Mentally ill? Your out. You pass physicals but not boot camp? Your out. You at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake.", ">\n\nYou at no point wander into a military recruiter by mistake\nYeah, because most 18 year olds who decide to go to a military recruiters office, likely doesn’t have a lot of other options. These are kids who are coming rural areas, poorer communities, inner-cities, foster children, kids in the system, children of poorer immigrant families, etc. I’m not saying they are the only recruits in the military. There are people who enter from all walks of life.\nBut, recruiters go heavily after the children in these less affluent areas or are not infringed upon from doing so. There was a national report back in November that found in some districts almost primarily Black and Brown communities where students were required to take ROTC. They did not ask for or wanted to join ROTC, but they were signed up for it and they could not avoid. \nI don’t think people realize a lot of exploitation that goes on from this type of process and mentality that happens in the states. It’s almost as if it’s to say these kids cannot have the best of things not make decisions on their own. When I see situations, like this, it tells me that some institutions or people don’t believe certain kids are capable of critical thinking nor have the ability to demonstrate their own autonomy or liberty, definitely should be allowed to think critically. Especially when they challenge authority figures.", ">\n\nHowever, the solution is to raise the age of conscription (especially since a draft is never going to happen in the U.S. again anyway). There are very good reasons for many of those age restrictions as far as chemical use and other issues. I don't trust an 18 year old with liquor or guns.", ">\n\nThe problem is that from infancy to adulthood, our body matures at different rates. There's liver for alcohol, reproductive for pregnancy, brain for cognitive, etc. So while our brain may still need time to develop, our reproductive have already started.\nWhat you're proposing is that as long as one part of the organ matures, the child should be able to do everything else such as drive a vehicle. But some girls get their period as early as 9years old, but they haven't hit their growth spurt for height (where they go from 4'-9\" to 5-4\") so now they went from what's medically considered a short person (under 4-10) to being a normal height person. Cars are designed with specific requirements, there's a minimum and a max height. So a person that's 4' tall behind the wheel getting into an accident will be severely injured compared to a 5'-10\"\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. (Yes yes I know how weak of an argument this is considering how ignorants Americans are as adults) but the thing that children have yet to developed it (so there's potential) vs an ignorant adult who chooses not to educate themselves.", ">\n\nI think again you are missing the point, in the sense that you in your own words.\n\nSo people as young as 9yo are still developing their brain and learning. You're giving them voting rights to something they barely know nothing about. *\n\nAs I said, that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea for them to be forced through a pregnancy or bear, possibly take care of a child or decide to put the child up for adoption… who may one day ask where’s their biological birth-givers or donors. \nAn adult can choose to be uninformed, but they have that privilege to do so. We have to deal with that on other terms, but a pregnant child almost by default cannot choose to be uninformed. It’s a young person who may not be in high school nor middle school in some cases. Being forced to carry a pregnancy in many cases, probably unwanted. Which is pure cruelty.", ">\n\nWar is an extreme circumstance that is likely never going to happen to you, in particular at that age (3 years for it to occur in the US at least, between 18-21)\nNearly everything else you suggested happens everyday. These are not the same.\nThe majority of what you listed we don't allow because we acknowledge the risks involved and as a society decide to protect the vulnerable youth from them, or acknowledge they are not well equipped to make these decisions for themselves.\nIn war, there's a chance you will die, whether you attempt to protect your country or not.", ">\n\nMy Opinion my personal opinion is if i as a under age female am forced to carry out a full term pregnancy that my body may not even be able to handle due to numerous health issues i should have the option to legally drop outta school and get help and not have my parents put in jail for something they cant control", ">\n\nThe draft is so that the country isn’t conquered and every citizen loses their life or at least their livelihood and all assets. The draft is a desperate move to save the country and has nothing to do with the maturity of those being drafted expect that they are more capable of shooting an enemy than a toddler. \nDrugs and alcohol isn’t being kept away from children just because adults can and they like to be mean and gatekeep things. They are kept away because those substances are especially dangerous to immature brains that are still developing combine with the immaturity to likely not dose responsibly. Letting someone destroy their brain on recreational drugs just because the country was threatened is horrible logic. \nIf there is an emergency and you have to leave your 4 year old home alone because you have to rush someone to the hospital, you don’t also give them a loaded gun because they get to do all the mature adult things now.", ">\n\nThe draft is so that the country isn’t conquered and every citizen loses their life or at least their livelihood and all assets. The draft is a desperate move to save the country and has nothing to do with the maturity of those being drafted expect that they are more capable of shooting an enemy than a toddle\nWhy would a country be conquered?\nDo you remember the entirety of the Vietnam War and how basically was one of the major proliferation of American counter culture?\nYoung people risking their lives for things that won’t greatly improve their lives nor even possibly win war or gain any victories of consequence.\nI don’t think the people of Vietnam or Cambodia or any other country, like Iraq truly wanted to take away the freedoms of individual Americans. Remember, these conflicts happened at a time where Jim Crow laws were alive and well." ]

[]

[ "Now that you unlocked the 60% you can go smaller on the next keyboard. That what I did anyway, small keyboards are fun." ]

[ "Now that you unlocked the 60% you can go smaller on the next keyboard. That what I did anyway, small keyboards are fun.", ">\n\nI think I'd have yo work my way up (down?) to there, the 40% keyboards look waaay too small right now. Not against the idea though." ]

[ "Now that you unlocked the 60% you can go smaller on the next keyboard. That what I did anyway, small keyboards are fun.", ">\n\nI think I'd have yo work my way up (down?) to there, the 40% keyboards look waaay too small right now. Not against the idea though.", ">\n\nPut it above my current Keychron board for comparison..." ]

[]

[ "What a long ass headline" ]

[ "What a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard." ]

[ "What a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?" ]

[ "What a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?", ">\n\nWhat a long ass headline" ]

[ "What a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?", ">\n\nWhat a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard." ]

[ "What a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?", ">\n\nWhat a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?" ]

[ "What a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?", ">\n\nWhat a long ass headline", ">\n\nI know, reading is so hard.", ">\n\nIsn't that the standard way of dealing with Olympic officials?", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 69%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nShinichi Ueno, former president of advertising agency ADK Holdings Inc., has changed his tune and is now expected to admit to charges of bribing a Tokyo Olympic official, sources said.\nUeno, 68, and two subordinates were arrested in October on suspicion of bribing Haruyuki Takahashi, 78, a former senior official of the Tokyo Olympic organizing committee, to help ADK win a deal to handle the contracts of corporate sponsorships.\nA former chairman of clothing company Aoki Holdings Inc. and other company officials admitted to bribing Takahashi.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Takahashi^#1 Ueno^#2 company^#3 bribe^#4 official^#5" ]

[]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nMost elevator trips are over in less than a minute. Not much inclination to sit when you're going to moving again in a short period of time." ]

[]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?" ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"" ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"", ">\n\nSeriously, he's a republican. Just fucking lie, for Christ's sake. It's not like any of your voters are ever going to call you on it." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"", ">\n\nSeriously, he's a republican. Just fucking lie, for Christ's sake. It's not like any of your voters are ever going to call you on it.", ">\n\n\nIn a departure from the pedestrian fare found at most political banquets, DeSantis, a food-lover with Italian roots, flew in the crew from Carbone, the trendy, New York-founded restaurant chain that moved to Miami last year, to both make a point about companies relocating to Florida and to offer a treat to contributors who gave at least $25,000.\n\n \nCarbone didnt move to Miami. They just opened a location there.\nJust goes to show that the puffery surrounding \"companies flocking to Florida\" is mostly hoopla." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"", ">\n\nSeriously, he's a republican. Just fucking lie, for Christ's sake. It's not like any of your voters are ever going to call you on it.", ">\n\n\nIn a departure from the pedestrian fare found at most political banquets, DeSantis, a food-lover with Italian roots, flew in the crew from Carbone, the trendy, New York-founded restaurant chain that moved to Miami last year, to both make a point about companies relocating to Florida and to offer a treat to contributors who gave at least $25,000.\n\n \nCarbone didnt move to Miami. They just opened a location there.\nJust goes to show that the puffery surrounding \"companies flocking to Florida\" is mostly hoopla.", ">\n\nWith appropriate credit to Starship, he is quite \"knee deep in the hoopla\"..." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"", ">\n\nSeriously, he's a republican. Just fucking lie, for Christ's sake. It's not like any of your voters are ever going to call you on it.", ">\n\n\nIn a departure from the pedestrian fare found at most political banquets, DeSantis, a food-lover with Italian roots, flew in the crew from Carbone, the trendy, New York-founded restaurant chain that moved to Miami last year, to both make a point about companies relocating to Florida and to offer a treat to contributors who gave at least $25,000.\n\n \nCarbone didnt move to Miami. They just opened a location there.\nJust goes to show that the puffery surrounding \"companies flocking to Florida\" is mostly hoopla.", ">\n\nWith appropriate credit to Starship, he is quite \"knee deep in the hoopla\"...", ">\n\nUnder a microscope, DeSantis is going to crack hard and it will be ugly. He’s been built up as the next great Republican leader but he’s never run on a national level even though he’s been in the spotlight recently. I think this will be a Sarah Palin situation where too many flaws will be exposed upon national scrutiny.\nWhile he’s not stupid, he has no charisma and he’s way too cocky for his limited skill set/values as a politician. While the 2023 political scene is now what it was 10 years ago and a random comment can’t destroy a career, he will have a hard time gaining national likability and if he goes into a debate with Trump, he might struggle like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio did." ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"", ">\n\nSeriously, he's a republican. Just fucking lie, for Christ's sake. It's not like any of your voters are ever going to call you on it.", ">\n\n\nIn a departure from the pedestrian fare found at most political banquets, DeSantis, a food-lover with Italian roots, flew in the crew from Carbone, the trendy, New York-founded restaurant chain that moved to Miami last year, to both make a point about companies relocating to Florida and to offer a treat to contributors who gave at least $25,000.\n\n \nCarbone didnt move to Miami. They just opened a location there.\nJust goes to show that the puffery surrounding \"companies flocking to Florida\" is mostly hoopla.", ">\n\nWith appropriate credit to Starship, he is quite \"knee deep in the hoopla\"...", ">\n\nUnder a microscope, DeSantis is going to crack hard and it will be ugly. He’s been built up as the next great Republican leader but he’s never run on a national level even though he’s been in the spotlight recently. I think this will be a Sarah Palin situation where too many flaws will be exposed upon national scrutiny.\nWhile he’s not stupid, he has no charisma and he’s way too cocky for his limited skill set/values as a politician. While the 2023 political scene is now what it was 10 years ago and a random comment can’t destroy a career, he will have a hard time gaining national likability and if he goes into a debate with Trump, he might struggle like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio did.", ">\n\nYeah but the general public cared about flaws back then. They don't now (see: MTG, boebert, the entire party, etc)" ]

[ "I've said for quite awhile now that once Americans actually get to know DeSantis they aren't going to like what they see. He's a very smarmy, needlessly hostile, cocky asshole. He's very much convinced that he's some kind of king that's going to rule America with an ultra right wing conservative iron fist. I don't think it's going to play very well across the country.", ">\n\nSo like Trump?", ">\n\nDeSantis is more intelligent and far less emotionally erratic than Trump while being much more of a religious zealot. They do share many of the same policy views but in terms of behavior and personality they aren't really interchangeable.", ">\n\nYou say that, but this is actually why he never does public appearances where the press can ask questions. He cant think on his feet well and he gets flustered easy. In the past all those encounters led to him doing that weird arm flapping thing and just launch into whining about unfair media with his real pip squeaky voice he has. It looks weak as hell and he comes across like a fuming toddler wearing dads jacket for Easter with how he apes Trump’s crappy suit cut. His handlers stopped those type of events so he can be portrayed mostly through right wing media narratives.", ">\n\nRemember when Charlie Crist asked him if he would serve four years as Governor and he just stood there frozen like a deer in the headlights?\nI understand the candidates were not supposed to question each other but that whole debate was a shit show and Desantis wasn't even bright enough to lie and say \"Yes I will serve my term as Governor.\"", ">\n\nSeriously, he's a republican. Just fucking lie, for Christ's sake. It's not like any of your voters are ever going to call you on it.", ">\n\n\nIn a departure from the pedestrian fare found at most political banquets, DeSantis, a food-lover with Italian roots, flew in the crew from Carbone, the trendy, New York-founded restaurant chain that moved to Miami last year, to both make a point about companies relocating to Florida and to offer a treat to contributors who gave at least $25,000.\n\n \nCarbone didnt move to Miami. They just opened a location there.\nJust goes to show that the puffery surrounding \"companies flocking to Florida\" is mostly hoopla.", ">\n\nWith appropriate credit to Starship, he is quite \"knee deep in the hoopla\"...", ">\n\nUnder a microscope, DeSantis is going to crack hard and it will be ugly. He’s been built up as the next great Republican leader but he’s never run on a national level even though he’s been in the spotlight recently. I think this will be a Sarah Palin situation where too many flaws will be exposed upon national scrutiny.\nWhile he’s not stupid, he has no charisma and he’s way too cocky for his limited skill set/values as a politician. While the 2023 political scene is now what it was 10 years ago and a random comment can’t destroy a career, he will have a hard time gaining national likability and if he goes into a debate with Trump, he might struggle like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio did.", ">\n\nYeah but the general public cared about flaws back then. They don't now (see: MTG, boebert, the entire party, etc)", ">\n\nPeople like MTG and Boebert are idiots but they’re immensely confident (in their own stupidity). They will never falter or wilt in front of cameras or while being pressed on something because they’re just sort of immune to that; they’ll quadruple down without flinching. DeSantis on the other hand absolutely crumbles at the slightest push back on him. Trump might actually make him cry on stage if they had to share one. He’d short circuit like Rubio did when pressed by Christie." ]