in U.S. circa 1990, “nanny state” takes the intellectual space of “political correctness”

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

I wouldn't tax that at all or even regulate advertisement/sales. Same goes for hard drugs, porn, firearms, booze, smokes, soda, fast food, etc.

Really, if we're going to tax or restrict availibility of things for the sake of societal health I'd rather put taxes/restrictions on competing for prestigious positions/other forms of status-seeking behavior instead of taxing "vices"/"degenerate" behavior. People doing status seeking regularly drives societies off cliffs and is often the cause of revolutions, civil wars, unrest or foreign wars. This strikes me as a bit worse for "public health" than the healthcare sector having to spend a bit more because of people smoking cigs.

 

[GeographyDude]

Personally I would be in favor of moving the military age back up to 21 (and the voting age too tbh), but I know both of those things probably wouldn't be too popular.

I would like to at least seriously consider the first call up being adults between 35 and 50.

On the theory that they’ve already had a chance to enjoy life and perhaps a chance to have children as well. Plus, we’ve less likely to try to do the war or occupation on the cheap, like we might be so tempted if we’re essentially envisioning using the services of junior citizens (whatever we might say out loud).

 

[AnonymousSauce]

I would like to at least seriously consider the first call up being adults between 35 and 50.

On the theory that they’ve already had a chance to enjoy life and perhaps a chance to have children as well. Plus, we’ve less likely to try to do the war or occupation on the cheap, like we might be so tempted if we’re essentially envisioning using the services of junior citizens (whatever we might say out loud).

I’d just as soon not fight the wars at all, unless the USA is actually under threat/attack.

 

[NedStark]

I would like to at least seriously consider the first call up being adults between 35 and 50.

On the theory that they’ve already had a chance to enjoy life and perhaps a chance to have children as well. Plus, we’ve less likely to try to do the war or occupation on the cheap, like we might be so tempted if we’re essentially envisioning using the services of junior citizens (whatever we might say out loud).

The problem is that 35-50 folks are no longer in their physical prime.

 

[GeographyDude]

I’d just as soon not fight the wars at all, unless the USA is actually under threat/attack.

I’d also start talking about peacekeeping and international coalitions early to mid as situations are drifting to genocide. And frankly, be prepared to go it alone as need be.

I mean, situations such as Cambodia, Guatemala, Rwanda, Darfur, and so forth.

 

[jonnic123]

The problem with reducing the drinking age or any other age restrictions is the human brain does not fully develop until about 25 years old. So a 16 year old is incapable of understanding the long term consequences of their choices in the same way a 18 or 21 year old can. Also exposure to any drug is more likely to cause problems whilst the brain is still maturing. The earlier the exposure the more effect on the physical structure of the brain. For this reason i think life changing choices should be restricted until at least 18 and preferably 21. Including joining the armed forces, I joined when I was 17 by the way.

 

[overoceans]

The problem with reducing the drinking age or any other age restrictions is the human brain does not fully develop until about 25 years old. So a 16 year old is incapable of understanding the long term consequences of their choices in the same way a 18 or 21 year old can. Also exposure to any drug is more likely to cause problems whilst the brain is still maturing. The earlier the exposure the more effect on the physical structure of the brain. For this reason i think life changing choices should be restricted until at least 18 and preferably 21. Including joining the armed forces, I joined when I was 17 by the way.

jonnic:

Are you also in favour of setting the age at which one can be tried as an adult at 21?

 

[jonnic123]

jonnic:

Are you also in favour of setting the age at which one can be tried as an adult at 21?

Under most circumstances yes. However there are crimes which even a child knows is totally wrong. For example the murder of jammie bulger by 2 10 year old boys in the uk. But for victimless crimes or minimal harm offences then allowances should be made. However by 18 everyone should know the difference between deliberate infliction of harm and naivety.

 

[marktaha]

The problem with reducing the drinking age or any other age restrictions is the human brain does not fully develop until about 25 years old. So a 16 year old is incapable of understanding the long term consequences of their choices in the same way a 18 or 21 year old can. Also exposure to any drug is more likely to cause problems whilst the brain is still maturing. The earlier the exposure the more effect on the physical structure of the brain. For this reason i think life changing choices should be restricted until at least 18 and preferably 21. Including joining the armed forces, I joined when I was 17 by the way.

Patronising. Victimless crime laws should be repealed.

 

[darklordoftech]

The problem with reducing the drinking age or any other age restrictions is the human brain does not fully develop until about 25 years old. So a 16 year old is incapable of understanding the long term consequences of their choices in the same way a 18 or 21 year old can. Also exposure to any drug is more likely to cause problems whilst the brain is still maturing. The earlier the exposure the more effect on the physical structure of the brain. For this reason i think life changing choices should be restricted until at least 18 and preferably 21. Including joining the armed forces, I joined when I was 17 by the way.

If that were true, people in other countries would have fried brains. The actual theory is that the part of the brain that deals with risk-taking finishes developing at 25, and that’s why people are less likely to drive drunk at 21 and less likely to crash their car at 25.

 

[Booster Gold]

You call it whatever you want, it won't make a difference. The complaints about political correctness are just the evolution of Atwaterism, a way for the right wing to oppose wanted/needed change without appearing horrible.

In the vast majority of cases from then and now, it's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. No one ever lost their job or got lynched for saying "pet" instead of animal companion. Dr Seuss wasn't canceled by anyone but his representatives. Potato head is the same toy it's always been. People refusing to platform (and thereby cosign), bigots, terrorists, and traitors is not a free speech issue.

Also, Americans don't use nanny as often as Brits. You could try mommy state. I remember democrats being the mommy party and Republicans being the daddy party.

 

[jonnic123]

If that were true, people in other countries would have fried brains. The actual theory is that the part of the brain that deals with risk-taking finishes developing at 25, and that’s why people are less likely to drive drunk at 21 and less likely to crash their car at 25.

very true however at 16 to 18 years old the brain is still very maliable. Hence the higher rates of psychosis in people who smoke weed in their mid teens compared to older exposure. The brain goes through 2 major developments ages 0 to 5 and adolescence, these are the most formative times. For this reason trauma experienced during those times causes long term issues. The brain literally develops physically differently than a nurtured and safe child would. This can be mitigated with therapy and a sense of safety but requires a lot of work. So my point about 16 year olds not having the rights of adults is because few if any are able to truly understand the consequences of their actions.