Our Lord and Savior - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #**151** 12-02-2012, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

OK, now you are splitting hairs. You know very well what I meant. Would you let a 14 year old volunteer to go into combat?

I knew what you meant, but its not as easy as that. The historical context would have a great deal to do with it. In today's culture I don't see that sending 14 year olds into combat would be a good idea. But I can imagine a situation where it might be essential.

Dudesky · #**152** 12-02-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

We are talking about the US so lets stick with our cultural norms. Would you send a t14 year old to combat?

Would depend on how many dead old guys you have.

aklim · #**153** 12-02-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I'm not. No way do I want to see a 14 year old in boot camp. Besides, how on earth do you even test for something like that?

I thought you'd have to go thru some physical tests to see if you are worthy? Besides, if we were told that a 14 yo was matured enough to be responsible for his decisions, we should respect that. I tend to dislike having multiple standards for multiple cases. On the one hand you say I am matured enough to make decisions for myself. On the other hand you are saying I am not. Which is it to be?

aklim · #**154** 12-02-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I knew what you meant, but its not as easy as that. The historical context would have a great deal to do with it. In today's culture I don't see that sending 14 year olds into combat would be a good idea. But I can imagine a situation where it might be essential.

Same could be said about slavery, premaritial sex or anything else.

MS Fowler · #**155** 12-02-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Same could be said about slavery, premaritial sex or anything else.

Are you speaking for, or against the proposition?

aklim · #**156** 12-02-2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Are you speaking for, or against the proposition?

I'm for sending 14 yo into combat if they meet the physical and mental criteria. I thought that was clear without the dodging behind culture ad what not and then saying something about it being essential at certain times. If you are willing to say that at X years old, a person is capable of independent thought, I fail to see why his wish to join the armed forces and potentially go into combat is an issue. Which way do you want it? This is like saying that at 18 you can die for your country, handle firearms and kill people but you cannot drink beer till 21. Kinda dumb.

cmbdiesel · #**157** 12-03-2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm for sending 14 yo into combat if they meet the physical and mental criteria. I thought that was clear without the dodging behind culture ad what not and then saying something about it being essential at certain times. If you are willing to say that at X years old, a person is capable of independent thought, I fail to see why his wish to join the armed forces and potentially go into combat is an issue. Which way do you want it? This is like saying that at 18 you can die for your country, handle firearms and kill people but you cannot drink beer till 21. Kinda dumb.

Kinda dumb.....

You mean like advocating sending a 14 year old into combat?

Certainly if you can be pressed into armed service, you should be able to pound a few beers....

cmbdiesel · #**158** 12-03-2012, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

We are talking about the US so lets stick with our cultural norms. Would you send a t14 year old to combat?

As no one else seems to want to answer the fairly asked question, I'll give it a go....

No.

aklim · #**159** 12-03-2012, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

You mean like advocating sending a 14 year old into combat?

I'm not sure I see your point. If you say that at 14 or whatever age the person is, he can be responsible for himself, how can you, with the same conviction say that he is not suitable for combat?

cmbdiesel · #**160** 12-03-2012, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm not sure I see your point. If you say that at 14 or whatever age the person is, he can be responsible for himself, how can you, with the same conviction say that he is not suitable for combat?

Not "14 or whatever age"....
Let's stick with 14.
Too young. Not ready for combat. Wouldn't send them.
Also not entirely responsible for themselves.

In an invasion where there were no quarter... I guess they would have to fight... probably defending the 5 year olds and babies....

MS Fowler · #**161** 12-03-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Not "14 or whatever age"....
Let's stick with 14.
Too young. Not ready for combat. Wouldn't send them.
Also not entirely responsible for themselves.

In an invasion where there were no quarter... I guess they would have to fight... probably defending the 5 year olds and babies....

^^^^Yes.

As for the old argument, "If they are old enough to fight, they are old enough to drink". Total non sequiter, IMO. The requirements and responsibility required to follow orders and fight in combat are not, in any way, related to the ability to responsible drink alcohol. That being said, I favor far more liberal ( There, I said it!) laws regarding alcohol consumption; alcohol or at least wine, is a food, and needs to be considered as food--not as a "forbidden" prize to be consumed in secret w/o supervision.

Air&Road · #**162** 12-03-2012, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

No you did not. You have never presented a legal argument. The only argument you posted was this.

That is not a legal argument. All this says is that is the people vote on it, that's the way it is unless the SCOTUS says it violates the COTUS. That is not a legal argument. A legal argument is saying that a person should have the right to own a weapon due to the fact that the 1st amendment says we can or a person should not be able to own a gun be cause if you read the COTUS there is a comma in the 1st and the right to own weapons is based on an armed militia.

Those are legal based arguments.

The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of why rights should not be up for a vote.

I know exactly what your stance is and I do not care about that but you know that and are just dodging my question.

You said you are not trying to force your beliefs on others. We all know that is a load of crap. Were a law to come on the ballot that prohibited equal marriage or abortion you would vote in favor of it.

What I am asking is if you have a legal argument to back up your vote. I do not care what your believe is moral or right. We are a nation of laws and you have to have a legal argument to allow or disallow something.

I am 100% against abortion. I think it is vile and used in large part as birth control. I believe there are times when it is medically necessary but by and large those are a small percentage of cases How ever, my beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to my vote. I have no compelling legal argument to prevent a woman from having absolute control over her body.

Do you have any legal arguments to substantiate any of your personal beliefs being transferred to your voting record which would force your beliefs on others?

Pretty amazing stuff. If I understand what you are writing, you actually VOTE opposite of what you BELIEVE?

Let's assume for the moment that you do not "believe in" rape. I hope this is true and I think it is safe to assume so. If that is indeed your belief and you caught a man in the act of raping a woman would you do NOTHING because you would be "forcing" your beliefs on someone else?

chilcutt · #**163** 12-03-2012, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Pretty amazing stuff. If I understand what you are writing, you actually VOTE opposite of what you BELIEVE?

Let's assume for the moment that you do not "believe in" rape. I hope this is true and I think it is safe to assume so. If that is indeed your belief and you caught a man in the act of raping a woman would you do NOTHING because you would be "forcing" your beliefs on someone else?

Good one !

aklim · #**164** 12-03-2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Not "14 or whatever age"....
Let's stick with 14.
Too young. Not ready for combat. Wouldn't send them.
Also not entirely responsible for themselves.

In an invasion where there were no quarter... I guess they would have to fight... probably defending the 5 year olds and babies....

OK. Lets say 14. IF the law says they are old enough to be responsible for themselves and they pass the same tests that other solders are supposed to pass, on what grounds can we say they are too young? After all, we just said they were old enough to be making their own decisions. Now if they flush out of Boot Camp, that is a different story.

Txjake · #**165** 12-03-2012, 08:47 AM

My dad was 15 when he joined the USMC right after Pearl Harbor....