I honestly was wondering if the person also meant things thst are currently illegal when they said adults should be allowed to do "whatever".
Saying "adults should be able to do whatever is legal" is a truism: you are by definition allowed to do anything that is currently legal, so it's pretty pointless to write a message supporting that. Thus, me asking for clarification.
You are the one who stepped into the conversation, told me to join the military, and acted strangly aggressive.
Another poster said that adults shold be allowed to do "whatever".
I asked if this "whatever" includes many things that are currently illegal, even if everyone involved consent to it.
You then told me to ask that question again after serving in the military, and i then told you that I already have served. Then you wrote a long anecdote that I honestly missed the point of.
You telling me that’s justified?
No, I'm not, and I'm not sure why you think I am.
I've already served in the military. What question am I supposed to ask again? Or do I need to re-enlist first? I'm not sure they would accept me at my age anymore.
But the point is that just because you are old enough to vote, doesn't mean you are necessarily mature enough to make certain decisions.
One could well argue that if the reason we are not allowed to heroin is related to health, or crimes due to addiction, then an 18 yo should not be allowed to use it, but a 90 year old would. I would even argue that we might want to allow hard drugs to 80 year olds, who probably can take responsibility by then.
you are old enough to drink, own a gun and whatever else
Does that include e.g. doing hard drugs? Are you also allowed to e.g sell hard drugs, or e.g. potentially harmful products, such as power tools without certain currently legally mandated safety features if the buyer is an adult? Are you allowed to sign away certain rights that you are currently not allowed to sign away, e.g. should an adult be allowed to sign themselves over to slavery without the possibility to undo it?
What is that based on, though? Why a single age for everything, when it might make sense to have it more "targeted". For example, wouldn't it make sense to allow voting in local elections, where things are usually simpler and cause and effect clearer, at a younger age?
Similarly, why tie drinking regulations, which are based on physiology, to voting age, which has nothing to do with it? You may say it's because if the person is mature enough to vote they can decide themselves, but there is a huge amount of things I'm not allowed to buy or consume even if I'm allowed to vote, so that argument doesn't hold (unless you advocate 100% liberalization of everything).
Having just a single age limit just makes it all seem very arbitrary, which it shouldn't be.
How many nuclear-capable countries have been invaded since WW2?
in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
If this war has thought us anything, it's that you can do whatever you want, as long as you have nukes. I have a feeling that is a much more dangerous result, than what a minor escalation may cause.
Why are you bringing up westeners at all, as if that somehow strengthens the point? It reveals your inner biases. "The opinions of the south is not enough, I have to bring in westeners to give my argument some weight".
Sometimes peple reveal more than they intended when they write.
Their majority opinion aligns with Russia.
You keep repeating that, but the data does not support it.
As said, that's a truism. What possible reason would one have to say it?