>19, go into restaurant >want to order alcoholic drink

American young men are far too immature to be able to drink before 21

at least you chose the pepe with chink eyes

>>36585128
drinking's shit, alcohol is jewish subversion elixir you aught to not be drinking it.

>>36585288
>>36585225
>dodging the point

File: 187803356.jpg (29KB, 420x420px)

29KB, 420x420px

>>36585128
>live in uk
>can drink from the age of 5 at home
>can drink in a restaurant from the age of 16 if it is with a meal and is bought by an adult
>no restrictions above 18

Feels good living in the land of the free

>>36585128
The only people who bitch about this are faggots who feel like they are adults, but are still acting like petulant children.

I'm fucking 30, and love the taste of beer, but if they outlawed booze tomorrow, not a single fuck would be given by me.

>>36585591
k

origing

Do you really not know anyone older that can buy it for you? I've been drinking since I was 14.

>>36585444
Yeah, enjoy your noguns, getting arrested for carrying a butter knife or a tire wheel, and a literal lack of freedom of speech. But at least you can down a pint so that you can forget how cucked you are by your government.

>>36585591
Again, not the point. The point is that if America truly is the land of the free, why can a rational adult not purchase alcohol until they reach the arbitrary age of 21?

>>36585288
If the Jew were behind alcohol the drinking age would be 10 and it would be encouraged to drink while pregnant or driving.
Glad to be in an Euro country where you can easily buy guns - it's better than America in every conceivable way.

>>36585694
I would make the argument that not even 21 year olds are actually mentally matured. Doesn't happen until around 25.

The real question to be asked is why they let you have sex, join the military, and/or sign loan documents/contracts before age 25, not why they let you do some things earlier than others.

File: 1483644618716.jpg (354KB, 873x900px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 873x900px

>>36585665
>can drink
>age of consent is 16
>3.01% niggers as opposed to America's 12.6% niggers
>guns aren't actually illegal
>switchblades are legal to carry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

Stay cucked Amerifag

I agree with you on the freedom of speech thing though

>>36585739
You don't need to wait until you're fully mentally matured at the age of 25 to be able to be at a point where you can make decisions for yourself though

File: bodyguard and shield.jpg (157KB, 1280x960px)

157KB, 1280x960px

>>36585759
Oh? You can conceal-carry guns? Anyone can go out and get a gun without being forced to demonstrate a "need" for one?

When did this change? Genuinely curious.

>>36585781
5 year olds are capable of making decisions for themselves.

>>36585661
No. Where do you think you are?

orig

>>36585128
>is from another country
>country he wisits has different laws and culture
>he gets butthurt over said changes

Do you realise you are like the immigrant muslims now ? Shut up and adhere to the rules of the country you are in or gtfo

And im not even american

>>36585801
Be reasonable, of course a 5 year old can't make decisions for yourself, but although mental development continues until 25, the point at which you can make decisions for yourself occurs before that

>>36585873
Actually I'm not an immigrant

Nice try

>>36585899
>be 15
>not fully mentally grown but "can make decisions"
>decide to be socialist youth retard
>get Breivik'd
Worked out well for them.

>>36585899
>of course a 5 year old can't make decisions for yourself
Presuming you meant "themselves." If you really think that, try asking a 5 year old what he wants for lunch. If they just stare off into space, unable to even comprehend the question, then I'll concede the argument. If they answer the question, then I win.

File: 1491507335174.jpg (54KB, 400x388px)

54KB, 400x388px

>>36585790
>mfw can go to school and walk on the streets without worrying about getting shot

In America, there are more guns than people. In the UK, there is 1 gun for every 60 people. So much better.

>inb4 'muh oppressive government'

>>36585935
Again, you're picking an arbitrary age. The point at which you can make decisions for yourself because you know what's best for you is before 25, but maybe not before 15.

>inb4 you pick another arbitrary age

>>36585970
>It's a good thing that government restricted guns
Ok, so it's ok for the government to restrict some things, but not others? Guns, free speech, and tires are fine to restrict, but not alcohol? It's ok for the police to enter your house without invitation and take pictures to put up on twitter, just so long as you can get drunk?

Sounds like you have your priorities straight.

>>36585970
The getting shot thing is a nigger problem, not a gun problem.
I'm this guy >>36585706 and our homicide rate is only 1/10 of the US'.

>>36585964
Not quite love. They may be able to make decisions but they are not at a point where they can make decisions that are in their best interest. Being able to make decisions for yourself relies on you being a rational individual, and children are not rational.

>>36586019
Women are not rational either but yet in this day and age we let them sign contracts and even vote.
Bad times.

>>36586019
>Not quite love. They may be able to make decisions but they are not at a point where they can make decisions that are in their best interest.

Who gets to decide that? When is smoking a cigarette in one's best interest? When is drinking alcohol in one's best interest. You claimed that the line in the sand was being able to make a decision. That includes decisions with negative consequences that you may not have forseen. It also includes negative consequences that you do know about (like smoking cigarettes or having unprotected sex before marriage), but choose to do anyways.

>>36585970
>mfw don't worry about that because I'm in a nice area and not a black hood

>mfw don't even worry about it when I'm in a black hood because an overwhelmingly majority of shootings are black on black gang shootings, am neither black nor in a gang

>>36586003
Wrong mate, I already conceded on free speech. Police can't enter properties without a warrant. Not sure what your point is tbqh. I'm quite happy for the government to intervene in the common interest. Not sure why you lot are so scared of your government. It's funny really.

File: 1462677503839.jpg (21KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x320px

>waiter asks me for ID
>"AM I BEING DETAINED?"

>>36586082
CEOs don't know better, they are basically paid for being psychopaths.

>>36586052
Nope, it's perfectly fine to make a decision that has negative consequences such as smoking and drinking if you are a rational individual, since only you know what is best for you. By 'best interest' I mean being at a point where you can weigh up the good and the bad and make a rationalised decision for yourself based on the consequences.

I don't know exactly when this point occurs in development; I suspect it may not be at any single point in time, and that it depends on the individual. I am certain that it occurs before the age of 25 though. You have to gauge subjectively whether the majority of people at a particular age are competent enough to realise the full consequences of their actions and make reasoned decisions for themselves. This will unfortunately always be a subjective task because it is impossible to measure something like that objectively.

File: cov police.jpg (20KB, 564x317px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 564x317px

>>36586064
>Police can't enter properties without a warrant
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/26/coventry-police-criticised-over-burglary-patrol-tactic_n_9075722.html

If police tried to do that here, it wouldn't be long before one got shot.

>>36586165
>Nope, it's perfectly fine to make a decision that has negative consequences such as smoking and drinking if you are a rational individual, since only you know what is best for you.
What qualifies an individual as irrational from an outside perspective? Easiest answer I can think of is making irrational decisions.

>>36586268
>What qualifies an individual as irrational from an outside perspective? Easiest answer I can think of is making irrational decisions.
>This will unfortunately always be a subjective task because it is impossible to measure something like that objectively.

What is irrational to you is not irrational to another person

The best way imo is to ask among ourselves 'What age would I say I was able to make rational decisions at, and would trust myself with the legal privileges that come with that ability?' The most common answer should be the age at which legal privileges are bestowed. This may differ based on which legal privileges we're talking about

>>36586345
>What is irrational to you is not irrational to another person
You're making the argument for 5 year olds being capable of making informed decisions for me.

>The best way imo is to ask among ourselves 'What age would I say I was able to make rational decisions at, and would trust myself with the legal privileges that come with that ability?'
25, when the brain is fully developed, which is what I argued for at the beginning of this discussion.

>>36586368
>You're making the argument for 5 year olds being capable of making informed decisions for me.
No, I'm not. I honestly have no idea why you think that.

>25, when the brain is fully developed, which is what I argued for at the beginning of this discussion.
Really? Because I'm 31 and in my opinion I was mentally mature enough to make decisions for myself from around 18. As I said before, although mental development may continue until 25, the point at which you are mentally mature enough to make decisions for yourself is passed before that. Are you even 25 yourself? Because I guarantee that if you were, you would realise you were able to make decisions before that point.

>>36586461
>Really? Because I'm 31 and in my opinion I was mentally mature enough to make decisions for myself from around 18.
But not 17? You were utterly incapable of making decisions at age 17, even though you could legally operate heavy machinery moving at 60 miles per hour?

This is the problem with "feeling." Feeling doesn't mean shit.

>>36586516
>But not 17? You were utterly incapable of making decisions at age 17
By age 18 my thinking had matured beyond when I was 17 so that I would have not made the decisions I made at 17 had I been 18. Obviously it depends on the decisions we're talking about though, and that age is just the age my thinking personally matured. Other people may have different ages. That's ok though because we can just find the most common self-reported reported age of mental maturity and bestow legal privileges at that age since the majority of people would be able to make the decision for themselves at that age.

>even though you could legally operate heavy machinery moving at 60 miles per hour?
You're conflating the ability to physically do something with the mental capacity to know whether you should or not.

>This is the problem with "feeling." Feeling doesn't mean shit.
As I said before, this sort of thing will necessarily have to be decided subjectively as there is no objective measure for mental maturity. That's why I said the best metric is the self-reported age of mental maturity given by people looking backwards to when they were younger. This metric is superior to every other metric because by having no age of consent for anything we ignore whether people have the capability to make reasoned decisions for themselves, by setting the age of consent for everything to 25 we ignore whether the point at which we can make decisions for ourselves really does coincide with the point at which we are at our maximum mental maturity (overshooting), and by regulating the decisions that people can make, we ignore the rationality of the individual to decide what is best for them.

>>36586708
>You're conflating the ability to physically do something with the mental capacity to know whether you should or not.
You don't have to make decisions while driving? Decisions that could lead to serious injury or death of yourself and/or another?

Come on man. You're blowing smoke. I'm not even going to read any of the rest of that post, or reply to any more responses. If you are doing these kinds of mental gymnastics to justify a 16 year old doing one of the most dangerous activities there is, but stating that you need to be 18 to understand that smoking causes cancer, and 21 to understand that drinking inhibits decision-making abilities, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

>>36586790
>If you are doing these kinds of mental gymnastics to justify a 16 year old doing one of the most dangerous activities there is, but stating that you need to be 18 to understand that smoking causes cancer, and 21 to understand that drinking inhibits decision-making abilities
Where did I say any of these things?

>>36586790
>You don't have to make decisions while driving? Decisions that could lead to serious injury or death of yourself and/or another?
You're conflating being able to physically do something competently (driving a car safely) with being mentally mature enough to make a decision that may have negative consequences and requires you to weigh these up against the potential benefits (such as joining the army).

This discussion is very tedious and I think you might just be a little bit mentally impaired. I've had to reiterate myself multiple times now because you lack reading comprehension. Not to mention the strawmanning.

>>36586368
>25, when the brain is fully developed, which is what I argued for at the beginning of this discussion.
I may be able to lift a heavy box at 14, even though I will continue to get stronger for many more years. Similarly, I may be able to make a decision at 18, even though my mental development will continue until I am 25.