View Full Version : The Age
It appears that there is a strong movement to change the drinking age of students in the US from 21 to 18 years old. The presidents of several prestigious universities have formed a group that will attempt to change the rule.
Personally as a student who just turned 19, I think the drinking age should be lowered down to 18/19 because it doesn't stop anybody from drinking. All it does is make it more of a "forbidden fruit" making people uneducated about drinking. Sadly when someone does drink for the first time when they are 21 then the results appear to be 10 times worse than when they are 18/19.
What do you guys think?
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26271328
Sokar Rostau
19-08-2008, 00:22
In Australia the legal age one can drink, vote, sign a contract (with a few exceptions, like residential leases), gamble, hire a car, hire or be a prostitute (age of consent is 16), or do anything else within the law is 18. 21 is a symbolic age in Australia with no legal meaning at all (although when I was 19 there was a nightclub in Kings Cross, Sydney, called Studebakers which was an American franchise and had a policy of no under 21s).
By the time most Australians can legally drink in the United States they have done all the stupid things Americans don't get to do until they're 21 three years ago and are over it all.
Start drinking at 18 and get it out of your system by the time you're 21-22, or start drinking at 21 and get it out at 24-25? I know what I think is better.
EliManning
19-08-2008, 01:16
I don't really enjoy dabbling in social relativism, but there's something to be said about the fact that we stand alone with the single highest drinkage age in the known universe. That or maybe one other country shares that shame, I just can't think of which.
Is there any history of Prohibition in any European countries? I think that played a rather crucial role in our ridiculous alcohol laws.
pancakeman
19-08-2008, 07:19
Just something to ponder: Say that it's prom night, and you're a senior in high school. You and your friends would really like to get ****faced, so you go out looking for some beer.
Either you:
A) Find someone who will buy you some, or someone who will sell it to you, and get drunk and wrap yourself around a tree.
B) Find someone who will sell it to you, get drunk, and somehow make it home.
C) Happen upon someone who refuses to do it, and you get bored and go throw stuff at other stuff.
Now, imagine that same scenario, but now you are perfectly free to buy whatever you want. The odds of a tree somewhere getting a nice fiberglass blanket go way up.
In Australia the legal age one can drink, vote, sign a contract (with a few exceptions, like residential leases), gamble, hire a car, hire or be a prostitute (age of consent is 16), or do anything else within the law is 18. 21 is a symbolic age in Australia with no legal meaning at all (although when I was 19 there was a nightclub in Kings Cross, Sydney, called Studebakers which was an American franchise and had a policy of no under 21s).
In the UK the drinking age is 18, but quite a few nightclubs have an Over 21 policy, mainly because they are aiming at a higher class of customer and don't want a bunch of high schoolers running around.
I used to work in such a place when I was in high school.
Is there any history of Prohibition in any European countries? I think that played a rather crucial role in our ridiculous alcohol laws.
I doubt it. Get the French or Italians to stop making Wine? AFAIK even the various wars that France hosted didn't stop them from making the stuff. In the UK they had prohibition of Gin (I think) because the specific drink was causing serious social problems.
I saw a list of US laws from the Prohibition era that are still on the statute. Most of them are "WTF?!" - like one in some state where it is illegal for someone under 21 to take the trash out to the bins if there are any opened alcohol bottles in the bags that still contain traces of booze.
As a general question - the Age of Consent in the US - why is that so high compared to almost everywhere else in the west?
Now, imagine that same scenario, but now you are perfectly free to buy whatever you want. The odds of a tree somewhere getting a nice fiberglass blanket go way up.
Or their parents, knowing they are goping to be drinking, arrange for a limo//cab to take them around. Or the kids arrange it for themselves. At least that's what pretty much everyone at my prom did.
Doesn't the US have a higher road fatality rate than almost all other Western countries?
pancakeman
19-08-2008, 08:05
That is true, they could arrange for a limo. But what if they don't have the money, or can't get a reservation for that night? I'm not saying that they'd be dropping left and right, but the crash rate would certainly go up.
Ron Burgundy
19-08-2008, 08:16
I believe that if you're responsible enough to be able to drive, that you are responsible enough to drink. I just think that you should wait a couple of years, until you're really good at both, before you combine the two.
SaroDarksbane
19-08-2008, 13:54
I always thought it amusing that at age 18, the government trusts your judgement enough to let you sign up to possibly get shot/blown up/captured and tortured as part of military action in a foreign country . . . but not to do something crazy like drink alcohol.
That is true, they could arrange for a limo. But what if they don't have the money, or can't get a reservation for that night? I'm not saying that they'd be dropping left and right, but the crash rate would certainly go up.
Is it currently uncommon for high-schoolers to drink at/after prom? Or has The War Against Under-Age Drinking been about as successful as, say, The War Against Drugs?
Stoutwood
19-08-2008, 20:34
That is true, they could arrange for a limo. But what if they don't have the money, or can't get a reservation for that night? I'm not saying that they'd be dropping left and right, but the crash rate would certainly go up.
Seriously now, the whole reason high schools host after-proms is to keep wasted teenagers from driving. As far as I know it's been pretty effective.
DufresneXV
19-08-2008, 22:37
Age to drink in America is 21, because the federal government bribed the state governments with transportation funding. States like Oklahoma had drinking ages of 18, and the government wanted to make the age 21, but the Supreme Court said they couldn't force a state to adopt 21 as the age. So they used tax money taken from the states to create what we now know as government transportation money for things like bridge, roads and other stuff. Any state wanting a share of the money had to make age 21 the drinking age, and no state government wanted to anger the voters, so they complied.
However, it has not been age 21 or age 18 forever. At times some states have had different drinking ages for males/ females. Oklahoma was taken to court of the fact they let females drink at 18, but made males wait until age 21.
When my grandfather (born in 1909) was growing up, the age of majority was 25! You were not fully emancipated until 25, so no drinking and you were still a minor. They had 25 as the age, because of things like college and didn't feel people were truly ready for the world and being of their parents until after college or when they reached the age of 25. Obviously many people didn't go to college back then, but that was one of the reasons for an age limit of 25.
So my grandfather grew up with the drinking age at 25, and then it was later changed to 21 or 18 depending on the state, but followed by the government enacting prohibition.
AeroJonesy
19-08-2008, 23:54
Kids will respect alcohol more if the drinking age is 18. And by that I mean, they will be able to buy good booze when they are 18, so they will learn there is more to drinking than finding the cheapest beer around.
pancakeman
20-08-2008, 04:28
Is it currently uncommon for high-schoolers to drink at/after prom? Or has The War Against Under-Age Drinking been about as successful as, say, The War Against Drugs?
I don't doubt that some do, but it would be different if you didn't have to commit a crime to do so.
ellie lindsey
20-08-2008, 07:39
I say, set all of the age requirements to 18.
Drinking age - 18
Driving age - 18
Voting age - 18
etc etc...
Basically, when you become an adult you get to do all of these things.
Stoutwood
20-08-2008, 07:55
I think starting people out on driving younger is a good idea. Giving them all those rights in one fell swoop seems like a recipe for disaster.
WildBerry
20-08-2008, 19:20
Is there any history of Prohibition in any European countries? I think that played a rather crucial role in our ridiculous alcohol laws.
We had one. Issues were similiar. Except our organised crime around the bootlegging was more renown of men in long rubber boots rather than trenchcoats (helped when shipping it across the bay from Estonia), but that's about the differences.
The sentiments generally expressed about it are very similiar; i.e. it is not held in very high esteem, and considered to be a prime example of the State exceeding both it's rights and capabilities in restricting the actions of the people. Reason to this, however, has more to do with the Finnish tradition of excessive binge drinking rather than our love for personal liberties, though.
I think starting people out on driving younger is a good idea. Giving them all those rights in one fell swoop seems like a recipe for disaster.
I personally think driving a combustion-engine vehicle with considerable weight carries more responsibility than many of the 16-year olds I have known are ready to shoulder, so in my eyes that should perhaps not be the one to be first divided from the lump of rights - at least by lowering it's age from the mode. Other than this small disagreement, I agree with you.
I think that age for getting a drivers license should be 16. Because at the point a child is capable of driving a vehicle (physically, mentally) and will have the capacity to understand the consequence of their actions.
To pancakeman:
If you are capable of being tried as adult in a court, voting for a president, going to war - then you should be capable of buying a beer.
Part of the problem with teenage drinking is that since it is illegal they do not receive enough education from the role models in their lives. When kids' parents were completely opposed to them drinking - even at 18 (I'm Cdn) they ignored the topic. As a result those kids were more likely to not understand their tolerance and make bad decisions. Knowledge is power - the kids who grew up with it understood their boundaries and seldom were the ones getting effed up.
Obviously there are exceptions to everything, but this what I noticed from my own perspectives of there past couple yrs of starting university/finishing high school.
pancakeman
22-08-2008, 03:38
I understand what you mean, I'm just talking about the ones that are too stupid, too naive, or too something else to be responsible. For instance, my brother had sips of beer or wine growing up, and my parents let him have beers before he shipped off to basic. I am really not worried about someone like him getting gooned and driving into a pedestrian or something.
But, on the other hand, you take someone who does whatever they think "everyone is doing". If they see people drinking, they'll drink, even if they know they can't handle it. (I'm not exactly out all night clubbing or anything, but even I have seen people who can't hold their liquor and insist on drinking anyway) So if you have someone like that, combined with the fact that they really havn't had much alcohol before, their will be problems. Combined with a car, someone will get seriously hurt.
So, I guess I agree with you, at least on the second part of what you said. If they are responsible teenagers, and have maybe been allowed to drink a little before, it's not a big deal. I'm just saying that I believe most of the people that would be affected (effected?) by this law are not responsible enough, have not had much to drink before, and would make it a big deal.
Funny that the age you can become a parent is subject to only the laws of Biology.
And if you do become pregnant while considered "under age" you lose your right to decide to abort.
Age means swat. Some people are mature enough to behave properly and take responsibility by the age of 16, some will never be.
But yeah, 21 is an odd number to me, since we get to do all our stuff at 18 (besides buying strong spirits from liquor store, which requires the age of 20). What bugs me most about the US' way of prohibiting drinking until 21 is that they still let you drive when you're 16. What on earth? "He surely can't harm anyone with a car, being in his teens and all, he must be a careful driver. But GENTLY CARESS the alcohol!"
No comprende.
pancakeman
22-08-2008, 06:07
No matter what age you are, you are not going to be an amazing driver until you have had years of practice. Therefore, they could let you drive at 18, but you would still be as bad as if you were 16.
No matter what age you are, you are not going to be an amazing driver until you have had years of practice. Therefore, they could let you drive at 18, but you would still be as bad as if you were 16.
I know I would've been a crapload more reckless if I'd been driving around with a car like I did with a moped (whatever the small thingamalings are called in English) when I was 16. Can anyone dig up some statistics about the accident levels of the younger drivers (16-17 yo)? I'd do it myself but I gotta rush off to install a computer. This is purely out of intrest, I'm not trying to derail the topic.
Stoutwood
22-08-2008, 07:11
I personally think driving a combustion-engine vehicle with considerable weight carries more responsibility than many of the 16-year olds I have known are ready to shoulder, so in my eyes that should perhaps not be the one to be first divided from the lump of rights - at least by lowering it's age from the mode. Other than this small disagreement, I agree with you.
I'm inclined to agree with pancakeman on this topic. Experience is the key with driving. I do think that the rules for getting a driver's license should be stricter though.
I'm inclined to agree with pancakeman on this topic. Experience is the key with driving. I do think that the rules for getting a driver's license should be stricter though.
Why wouldn't you allow 16 year olds to consume alcohol then? Or smoke cigarettes? Hell, experience is what teaches there too... :)
I'm waiting for the "their bodies are still developing" answer.
edit:
Teenagers accounted for 10 percent of the US population in 2006 and 12 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths. They comprised 14 percent of passenger vehicle (cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans) occupant deaths among all ages, 7 percent of pedestrian deaths, 4 percent of motorcyclist deaths, and 10 percent of bicyclist deaths.
* The crash rate for 16-year-olds is 3.7 times higher than drivers of all ages.
Here (Finland) we get to drive at 18, and the crash rate for our newbie drivers was 2 times larger than the rest in 2006. I don't have the fatality numbers available but I'm guessing they follow along the same lines.
So yeah, it does make a difference.
WildBerry
22-08-2008, 14:23
-snapped out the supporting statistics - just wanted to tell you I appreciated them-
Here (Finland) we get to drive at 18, and the crash rate for our newbie drivers was 2 times larger than the rest in 2006. I don't have the fatality numbers available but I'm guessing they follow along the same lines.
So yeah, it does make a difference.
This is what I was aiming at. Do note, however, Ankeli, that our position is rebuttable by commenting that it is indeed the immaturity of the drivers as drivers, not as aging people, that causes the high accident margin in the lower age cohorts. It's not like you can investigate it that much (we don't see many countries that would issue most of it's drivers licenses to people in their thirties), but like you I feel it is indeed the immaturity of people as persons (why is it that young men are so much more prone to accident than young women if it's only about driver experience?) that affects the accident rate - ergo, age plays in as a factor.
This is what I was aiming at. Do note, however, Ankeli, that our position is rebuttable by commenting that it is indeed the immaturity of the drivers as drivers, not as aging people, that causes the high accident margin in the lower age cohorts. It's not like you can investigate it that much (we don't see many countries that would issue most of it's drivers licenses to people in their thirties), but like you I feel it is indeed the immaturity of people as persons (why is it that young men are so much more prone to accident than young women if it's only about driver experience?) that affects the accident rate - ergo, age plays in as a factor.
The lack of experience combined with that, yeah. I personally believe that by raising the age required to drive to 20 or 21 or so would reduce the risk of new drivers getting into accidents. Not by a whole lot, but hey, a life saved is a life saved.
18 is a good drinking age. Maturity ha snothing to do with it. It's all biology. The lower in age you are, down from 18. The greater the damage is that alcohol causes to you.
18 is a good drinking age. Maturity ha snothing to do with it. It's all biology. The lower in age you are, down from 18. The greater the damage is that alcohol causes to you.
And as it is supported by the statistics, the lower in age you are, down from 18, the greater the damage is that you cause to yourself and others. But yeah.
SaroDarksbane
22-08-2008, 19:05
The lack of experience combined with that, yeah. I personally believe that by raising the age required to drive to 20 or 21 or so would reduce the risk of new drivers getting into accidents. Not by a whole lot, but hey, a life saved is a life saved.
Raising the age required to drive up to 150 would eliminate ALL traffic accidents.
Why not go for that? Lives saved and all.
Raising the age required to drive up to 150 would eliminate ALL traffic accidents.
Why not go for that? Lives saved and all.
Why shouldn't every country use children as soldiers? They're as effective, if not more. Hell, it's just casualties.
All I see is a move to pad someone's coffers. Everything revolves around money. Kids have a lot more 'disposable' income these days. Lower the drinking age and you have just filled your pockets with more tax money.
Why shouldn't every country use children as soldiers? They're as effective, if not more. Hell, it's just casualties.
Your first example was a realy bad one. Taking more people out of the traffic will ofcourse cause less accidents but it doesn't establish anything to the issue.
It's like saying that if we had half as many children then we would reduce crime, deaths and disease by half. The argument has no point.
All I see is a move to pad someone's coffers. Everything revolves around money. Kids have a lot more 'disposable' income these days. Lower the drinking age and you have just filled your pockets with more tax money.
Eh What?
Your first example was a realy bad one. Taking more people out of the traffic will ofcourse cause less accidents but it doesn't establish anything to the issue.
Uhm... No, the same amount of people will be driving. Only for the transit years there'd be a small amount less people driving. And if the 16 to 18 comparison is to be believed, yes, it would reduce the accidents.
SaroDarksbane
22-08-2008, 19:53
Uhm... No, the same amount of people will be driving. Only for the transit years there'd be a small amount less people driving. And if the 16 to 18 comparison is to be believed, yes, it would reduce the accidents.
But by the time the "transit years" have passed, there will be other 16-18 year olds who would otherwise be driving. Hence, less people driving.
(And btw, your child soldier analogy was awful and in no way had anything to do with what either of us said. I can't even respond to it because I have no idea where you were attempting to go with that line of reasoning . . .)
Great so everybody get's to have their newbie accidents with slower reaction times.
(And btw, your child soldier analogy was awful and in no way had anything to do with what either of us said. I can't even respond to it because I have no idea where you were attempting to go with that line of reasoning . . .)
It was as absurd of a suggestion as yours. That's it. Except that it'd actually work.
Driving experience comes from actual driving. If you start driving 2 years later than your learning curve is delayed by 2 years and the accident statistics get moved up by 2 years.
Driving experience comes from actual driving. If you start driving 2 years later than your learning curve is delayed by 2 years and the accident statistics get moved up by 2 years.
How do you explain the 1.7 time reducement in crash statistics from 16 to 18 year old new drivers then? I do agree, experience makes up for the most of it. But the statistics dont lie.
WildBerry
23-08-2008, 07:56
Raising the age required to drive up to 150 would eliminate ALL traffic accidents.
Why not go for that? Lives saved and all.
Ankelis soldier analogy is not analogous to your example, but to your attitude. It implies that you care about the established expression of freedom (traffic) rather than whatever passes for security in it.
You reduce our point to absurd by drawing the age for legal driving to outrageously high. Since the original argument - the one you're supporting against ours - by Stout is that 16 is ok rather than 18, this enables me to do this too - how about we lower the legal driving age to 10, since it's not bound to The Age of 18 anyway where you live, and besides, all arguments for security are just Socialists trying to limit them God-given rights? Sure, a few more people will die, but the tree of liberty, the blood of young drivers and all that jazz?
How do you explain the 1.7 time reducement in crash statistics from 16 to 18 year old new drivers then? I do agree, experience makes up for the most of it. But the statistics dont lie.
What is it based on? Ammount of crashes total or the average ammount of crashes per kilometer traveled?
always thought it amusing that at age 18, the government trusts your judgement enough to let you sign up to possibly get shot/blown up/captured and tortured as part of military action in a foreign country . . . but not to do something crazy like drink alcohol.
My thoughts exactly.
From personal experience, the later you experience the down side of alcohol intoxication the worse. I started drinking at around 16(a dew beers) and obviously I learned the hard way that more beers are no good. Now I'm 18, and I know my no-no point.
On the otherside though my friends who started drinking at 18-19 did much more irresponsible things than just hug a tree. One of my friends got into a car and nearly hit someone. If he was caught, I'm not sure about the exact legislation but driving drunk with no licence would draw severe consequences. It could be just me, but I think the sooner you learn to drink the least probable it is for you to do something REALLY stupid and moronic.
That doesn't mean I'd put a beer in the hands of a 10 year old. :rolleyes:
What is it based on? Ammount of crashes total or the average ammount of crashes per kilometer traveled?
The amount of crashes total.
The amount of crashes total.
Are you sure? Because that would be an almost meaningless statistic and out of step with almost all other road accident crash statistics.
WildBerry
23-08-2008, 13:56
Are you sure? Because that would be an almost meaningless statistic and out of step with almost all other road accident crash statistics.
What do you mean by that? Urban traffic is much more tricky than highway driving in the middle of nowhere - I don't get the point of Johnny's suggestion, as crashes over distance traveled would have to be further geographically divided, if that was what you were supporting in stead of what Ankeli suggested.
What do you mean by that? Urban traffic is much more tricky than highway driving in the middle of nowhere - I don't get the point of Johnny's suggestion, as crashes over distance traveled would have to be further geographically divided, if that was what you were supporting in stead of what Ankeli suggested.
If there are more crashes between 16-18 than 18-20 then it just means that alot more people start driving at 16-18 than 18-20. It doesn't mean that people ages 16-18 have some biological disadvantage to handling vehicles.
WildBerry
23-08-2008, 15:23
As far as I could tell, he was talking reaction time measurements, not crashes. It's not like a 16-year old crashes a car that often here because they can't legally drive.
Or was there some particular crash statistic from the U.S. he was referring to?
As far as I could tell, he was talking reaction time measurements, not crashes. It's not like a 16-year old crashes a car that often here because they can't legally drive.
What does reaction time have to do with things in that comparison? At age 16 a persons reaction time is supreme. It's as good as it's ever going to be. Then from 20 it's down hill.
What does reaction time have to do with things in that comparison? At age 16 a persons reaction time is supreme. It's as good as it's ever going to be. Then from 20 it's down hill.
Hey, I made your sig. :thumbup:
If there are more crashes between 16-18 than 18-20 then it just means that alot more people start driving at 16-18 than 18-20. It doesn't mean that people ages 16-18 have some biological disadvantage to handling vehicles.
That's just bs and you know it. They are measured in relation to all other age groups, so what you said makes absolutely no sense at all.
If kids are driving at 18 then they're spoilt brats and getting smashed and driving into a tree is probably doing the world a favour.
Is there any history of Prohibition in any European countries? I think that played a rather crucial role in our ridiculous alcohol laws.
I think we had it. Not too sure though, because Australian history is about as interesting as a Richard Kelly film.
Age means swat.
Do you mean squat?
WildBerry
23-08-2008, 17:21
Do you mean squat?
Ok, I'll squat you in stead of swatting you then.
Do you mean squat?
I'll raise you with Finnish 1 course? :coffee:
I'll raise you with Finnish 1 course? :coffee:
Oh please. Have you even heard finish? It's the verbal version of crabs clapping their claws together.
What do you mean by that? Urban traffic is much more tricky than highway driving in the middle of nowhere - I don't get the point of Johnny's suggestion, as crashes over distance traveled would have to be further geographically divided, if that was what you were supporting in stead of what Ankeli suggested.
Say you have 170,000 people who first start driving when 18, and 100,000 people who first start driving when 16. With average mileages per driver approximately equal.
Now - you are told that there are 1.7 times as many crashes caused by first time drivers aged 16 than by first time drivers aged 18. When you look at the relative number of drivers you would see that this would indicate it is experience rather than age that people start driving at has impact on how dangerous they are as drivers. Just that because you have far more drivers ages 16 you get more crashes.
However - if you has 100,000 people in each group, but the 16 year old drivers were responsible for 1.7 more crashes then that would indicate something about their standard of driving relative to 18 year old new drivers.
Also - while yes, driving in the city is more difficult than driving in the countryside if you divide crashes by miles traveled for both 16 and 18 year olds then as long as you have a similar concentration of 16 and 18 year olds between urban and country areas the statistic would still be a good comparison. If however, say 30% of 16 year olds lived in the countryside vs 605 of 18 year olds then the comparison gets more difficult.
WildBerry
24-08-2008, 07:52
Say you have 170,000 people who first start driving when 18, and 100,000 people who first start driving when 16. With average mileages per driver approximately equal.
Now - you are told that there are 1.7 times as many crashes caused by first time drivers aged 16 than by first time drivers aged 18. When you look at the relative number of drivers you would see that this would indicate it is experience rather than age that people start driving at has impact on how dangerous they are as drivers. Just that because you have far more drivers ages 16 you get more crashes.
However - if you has 100,000 people in each group, but the 16 year old drivers were responsible for 1.7 more crashes then that would indicate something about their standard of driving relative to 18 year old new drivers.
Yes yes, that is all very nice and good. But as far as I could tell, Ankeli was speaking Finnish statistics. The relevance of this knowledge lies in the fact that no 16-year old can legally drive here. Therefore, I am under the assumption (which he has verified) that was talking simulated and/or surveyed driving (again, because a 16-year old very rarely crashes a car as he or she cannot legally drive), not the actual crashes the Tiehallinto has collected.
So while I understand why such a stastics would be meaningful, it's just the case no such statistic has been created here. Hence the question.
Also - while yes, driving in the city is more difficult than driving in the countryside if you divide crashes by miles traveled for both 16 and 18 year olds then as long as you have a similar concentration of 16 and 18 year olds between urban and country areas the statistic would still be a good comparison. If however, say 30% of 16 year olds lived in the countryside vs 605 of 18 year olds then the comparison gets more difficult.
But if the urban driving and highway driving are not separated, urban driving - having a higher per mile accident concentration - will make for funny overall statistic.
Your point of skewed demographics also is a valid one - you might've guessed that cities in general and in Finland too host proportionally more young people.
KremBanan
24-08-2008, 08:06
Have you even heard finish? It's the verbal version of crabs clapping their claws together.
:funnyabove:
:funnyabove:
Norwegian sounds like someone's talking to the toilet though. :whistling:
However - if you has 100,000 people in each group, but the 16 year old drivers were responsible for 1.7 more crashes then that would indicate something about their standard of driving relative to 18 year old new drivers.
The statistics were the US 16 year olds in 2006 vs. the Finnish 18 year olds in 2006. There is a hell of a lot more 16 year old yanks than there is 18 year old finns, but they were calculated in relation to other driver age groups, ergo, comparable. A percent of total crashes in the country, not related to the amount of drivers in any way. You could argue that there are a lot more crashes in the US due to more people driving, but the percentile of the crashes by other age groups in US compared to ours was nigh equal.
Now to move on, voting age. I've been capable to vote for 4 years now, and I've had the chance to vote in 3 different types of elections. I've voted a grand total of 0 times. It wouldn't make a difference if 16 year olds could vote if you ask me, us kids these days, we just don't care. :thumbup:
Norwegian sounds like someone's talking to the toilet though. :whistling:
Atleast they make sense in northern context. The danish make sense too. The Swedes make sense per default. Where the hell do the fins come into the whole thing? They don't sound like russians and certainly don't sound like northern europeans. They just don't fit in the puzzle.
I mean languages they are geological. The closer you are the more similiar languages get. And the further away you get the less they have in common. Swedes and Norwegians for example understand eachother just fine. Danish understand Swedish just fine because we are the original language but Swedes can't understand them because the danish language have deteriated so much due to the geological distance. But the languages are still similar. Finland on the other hand are close to both Swedish and Russian when it comes to distance but has nothing to do with either language.
Language is like a mountain. At the top you have the original language and then as you get further down they get less similar. Finland though doesn't even seem to be on the same ****ing mountain (http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4845/fintz2.jpg) despite the close distance
All your languages sound silly.
Bork bork bork.
WildBerry
24-08-2008, 13:23
I mean languages they are geological.
Associated with the study of Earth's crust and stones? I bet yours is.
The closer you are the more similiar languages get. And the further away you get the less they have in common. Swedes and Norwegians for example understand eachother just fine. Danish understand Swedish just fine because we are the original language but Swedes can't understand them because the danish language have deteriated so much due to the geological distance. But the languages are still similar. Finland on the other hand are close to both Swedish and Russian when it comes to distance but has nothing to do with either language.
Language is like a mountain. At the top you have the original language and then as you get further down they get less similar. Finland though doesn't even seem to be on the same ****ing mountain (http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4845/fintz2.jpg) despite the close distance
Your observations are astute (I particularly liked the linked image), and have made many a linguist before you sort of puzzled. There have been, in the past, a lot of Finno-Ugric languages in the modern Russia. Many of them are either dying or dead by now, like shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages#Classification). The paradigm of our origin, the Volga turn thesis, has been quite disqualified in the years past. Then again, we've got nothing better at the moment. It is sufficient to assume that the speakers of the original stem language were so isolationist that they did have little to do with the possible Indo-European roaming tribes who were culturally superior for quite a long time.
Swedes, Nords, Finns, Danes, you're all as pasty looking as the processed fish you squeeze down your throats out of toothpaste tubes.
Freaks. Y'all oughta be inhaling processed cheese out of aerosol cans like us 'Murkans.
KremBanan
24-08-2008, 14:26
the danish language have deteriated so much due to the geological distance.
s-mOy8VUEBk
Whoa, I didn't know you could post youtube videos on non-pal forums. :shocked:
--------------
Let's try another:
sm-Za8TjMFQ[/quote]
Kewl :alright:
Sorry for the interruption. Continue on ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.