3 ms·
I honestly have no basis to agree or disagree with you. I know plenty of 16-28 year olds who drive dangerously and drive drunk/stoned these days too. That is al
by PraetorianGourd 5y ago
I honestly have no basis to agree or disagree with you. I know plenty of 16-28 year olds who drive dangerously and drive drunk/stoned these days too. That is all anecdotal evidence and thus I can't really use it as a basis for arguing _against_ what you say. But likewise I can't just take your claims at face value.
I can easily drink my whole salary if I only drink 25+ year old single malt :)
- watwut 5y agoAlcoholism rates are well studied. There is nothing anecdotal about it. Youth alcohol consumption is well studied. There are many studies on that too - youth now are drinking less then they used to. Google any of those. Youth deliquency rates are also not just subject of anecdotes. War generations had ... issues. They were violent way more among other things. The face value here is ideology: some people realy like to believe that wars and danger makes people better. They don't in reality. They traumatize people, desensitivise them, make them have issues.
- PraetorianGourd 5y agoOh oh oh I was never intending to imply war and danger makes people "better" at all. As subjective as that is. My argument was directly relating to existential threats posed by disease and how removed those born in the past 60 years are from those dangers. This has undoubtedly changed our risk tolerance _for disease_ and arguably (and I don't have the answer at all) for other external factors. War is not the answer for building a resilient society at all, and my apologies if it seemed I was implying that it was.