The famous "Martian Test" is really quite simple: that is, can you hypothetically explain your position to a Martian without sounding like a complete idiot? The 21 drinking age (and smoking age, toking age, etc.) clearly fails that test, big time.
If a given substance (regardless of what it is) is allegedly so apocalyptically dangerous that legal adults age 18-20 must be categorically banned from using it, thus arbitrarily carving out a three year exception to the age of majority, because reasons, backed by the full force of the law, why the hell is it even on the market at all in the first place?
Any answer justifying this bizarre state of affairs would thus fail the Martian Test:
If you have to literally invent new laws of nature in an attempt to explain why, that fails the Martian Test (and also fails Occam's Razor as well).
If you have to appeal to either tradition OR novelty, or indulge any other logical fallacies whatsoever to support your thesis, that fails the Martian Test.
If you speciously claim that 18-20 year olds are too fragile and/or immature to be trusted with full adult rights and bodily autonomy, but have no problem with sending them to war, executing them, trying them as adults, etc., that fails the Martian Test.
If you have to selectively (ab)use the precautionary principle, ad hoc, that fails the Martian Test.
If you have to cherry-pick the puny molehill of mainstream OR fringe "evidence" in favor of such restrictions while ignoring the massive mountain of evidence against such, that fails the Martian Test.
If you have to be disingenuous or intellectually dishonest in any way, including citing long-debunked fatally flawed "evidence", you fail the Martian Test.
If you have to resort to trolling or temper tantrums when you clearly lost the argument, you fail the Martian Test. And you are a sore loser as well.
If you have to resort to some flavor of "do as I say, not as I do", you utterly fail the Martian Test. And you prove yourself a flaming hypocrite on top of that.
(Ditto if you point out the mote in your opponent's eye while missing the log in your own.)
If you resort to the "weaker brother principle", which easily devolves into the "tyranny of the weaker brother", especially if you do so selectively, guess what? You still fail the Martian Test, big time.
And finally, if you appeal to "pragmatism" to justify it, you may very technically pass the Martian Test by the very skin of your teeth, but at the cost of utterly compromising one's moral principles. Either way, it's not very flattering at all, buddy. Checkmate.
Now get down off of your high horse, admit you were simply a bigot all along, apologize, and make amends.
QED
UPDATE: One should note that arguments which favor some version of "punishing the many for the excesses of the few" technically do not always fail the Martian Test, but are still highly unethical regardless.
"If you have to resort to trolling or temper tantrums when you clearly lost the argument, you fail the Martian Test. And you are a sore loser as well."
ReplyDeleteThis. I don't understand why people think trolling or resorting to personal insults is going to make people more receptive to your viewpoints. Instead, it is going to be the opposite. Most people can tell when people are engaging in genuine argumentative inquiry and when others are trying to evoke a certain response as a gotcha.
I know, right? Where I come from, relentless trolling and personal attacks are a sure sign that one lost an argument. And worse, that one is a sore loser.
DeleteI think a big reason why many people justify the legal drinking age of 21 because of Prohibitionist sentiment based on alarmism when it comes to alcoholic beverages. Many people say that alcoholic beverages are drugs but alcoholic beverages are first and foremost, beverages. Many people like to say that alcoholic beverages are dangerous but alcoholic beverages don't cause harm when a person drinks and behaves responsibly. Many people say that many people misuse alcoholic beverages but personal responsibility comes first. These are some of the reasons why many people justify a legal drinking age of 21. Another reason is that many people say that the brain is not fully developed by 25 but by 16-17 years of age, the brain is almost entirely developed and doesn't harm them. A legal drinking age of 18 justifies itself in that allowing young adults who are 18-20 years to drink responsibly by itself is a good policy. A legal drinking age of 18 would work well in the United States or anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that!
DeleteAnd the belief that if people younger than 21 get their hands on it they will only binge drink. They believe that they won't be able to control themselves lol.
DeleteThe only reason that some binge is because of forbidden fruit syndrome. At the very least, we should allow 18-20 year olds to drink beer or wine with a meal at restaurants (similar to England allowing 16-17 year olds to have cider or beer with a meal in pubs).
I think that a legal drinking age of 18 should allow young adults who are 18-20 years to drink cocktails as well. Not allowing them to drink cocktails at bars for instance, would be condescending and would have no practical purpose.
DeleteIndeed, I agree with Edwin.
DeleteI agree, and I think spirits should be 18 too, but I propose a split system as a way to get the "ball rolling". Historically, when the drinking age was up to the states, some set the age for beer and wine at 18, while hard liquor was 21.
DeleteIt's better than the "Taste & Spit" bill in New Hampshire. That bill would allow college students under 21 in who are taking culinary classes or wine and beverage courses to taste alcohol for educational purposes but they're not allowed to swallow it. How this is enforced, I'm not exactly sure lol.
https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2023/02/02/taste-but-dont-drink-bill-would-let-students-under-21-take-college-wine-and-beer-courses/
True, one step at a time I guess.
DeleteA good compromise would be to lower the drinking age to 18 but require drivers under age 21 to have a zero blood alcohol level to legally operate a motor vehicle. Some provinces in Canada already require that for drivers under 21 or 22, regardless of whether they have a GDL license or not.
DeleteThat is correct, Matt. Some Canadian provinces do some flavor of that, as do some European countries and Puerto Rico. Some of these, including the latter set it at 0.02 rather than 0.00, but either way that has the same effect. 0.02 would be better to avoid false positives, I think. Or set it at 0.00 but set all handheld breathalyzers to automatically subtract 0.02 from any readings, and for evidentiary breathalyzers, treat anything below the limit of quantitative (LOQ) as zero or testing negative.
DeleteTwenty-One Debunked has long called for that as a compromise, keeping the Zero tolerance for drivers under 21 while lowering the drinking age to 18.
It's a good idea.
DeleteI would have been able to live with that. I get that under 21-year-olds are still fairly inexperienced drivers and mixing alcohol at the same time driving restrictions fall off (age 18) may not be ideal.
DeleteEven being of age now, I don't drive if I know that I'm going out to drink. On my 21st birthday, I was given honorary chauffer service (by my cousin lol) and I didn't mind. Everyone goes home having had a good time and in one peace (literally). I honestly think it's something we'd all be better off for. Maybe we should lower the national limit to 0.05?
Grant, I apologize for the way I came across on the previous thread. You're right; I feel strongly about certain things and don't always communicate in the best way, and I apologize to anyone I offended on this thread. However, I don't apologize for standing firm in my opinions. Judging from previous posts, you're 22 (or 21 pushing 22). I know you think you're grown (and legally you are), but there's more to adulthood than legality.
DeleteIt is statistically accurate that your age group (18-24) is more susceptible to addiction to alcohol. I commend your efforts to be responsible and safe when celebrating your birthday, but that is not most young adults your age. Zero-tolerance laws alone will not work. People under 21 need their access to alcohol restricted altogether until they're more mature to handle the effects.
Adolescent alcohol use increases the risk of sexual assault, drunk driving fatalities, depression, drug abuse, failing grades in school, anxiety, etc. I'm not trying to take away anyone's freedom, but if evidence shows it's unsafe for children to consume alcohol, we should follow the science.
I apologize for how I spoke to you and others here, but I will not apologize for my stance. The drinking age of 21 is here to stay, and you should deal with that reality and that our roads are much better for it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6601671/
Deletehttps://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/alcohol-harms-the-brain-in-teen-years-before-and-after-that-too-2021011521758
Randy, as is typical, you literally pulled all of the fallacies listed in the article above. Natch. And the link that you shared adds nothing new or particularly compelling. If taken seriously, it could just as easily be used to justify bringing back Prohibition across the board. You hereby failed the Martian Test. Natch.
DeleteGrant, you are indeed correct. The troll is extended a phony olive branch, only to follow with more ageist verbal defecation. I am now shutting down the comments on this article.
DeleteGood riddance, troll. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
DeleteOh, and by the way, 18-24 year olds are NOT "children".
DeleteComments are now closed.
ReplyDelete