The Sage Garden

[traininthedistance]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Man, that's odd. Talk about punishing high schoolars. Being 16 meant freedom and fun.

I don't want to punish high schoolers- I want them to booze up openly, which is the opposite of punishment.  And of course I utterly reject the idea that the royal road to "freedom and fun" is socially-mandated car ownership: my whole point is that those things shouldn't rely on access to cars, for a kajillion reasons.

I'll grant that perhaps the specific ages I was throwing out might be less than 100 percent workable at the present moment (though they're more workable than most people fear), which is a shame insofar as it's served to distract from my wider point.

[traininthedistance]

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

Not to speak for Mersault or anything... but I'm pretty sure that's his point.  You may disagree with his contention that economics is almost wholly unfathomable by normal Euclidean (so to speak) methods, but the metaphor was, I'd argue, very precisely and well chosen for the point he's trying to advance.

Does that make sense?

[traininthedistance]

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

Not to speak for Mersault or anything... but I'm pretty sure that's his point.  You may disagree with his contention that economics is almost wholly unfathomable by normal Euclidean (so to speak) methods, but the metaphor was, I'd argue, very precisely and well chosen for the point he's trying to advance.

Does that make sense?

So Mr. Meursault's just arguing against this metaphoricization (correct word?) of big issues by pointing out that no one can really understand them? If that's the case, then I understand.

But if that's true it does start to border on sage.

I do like his analogy to aspects of fluids and quantum statistical processes. Society has a similarly large number of individual elements and variables that make strict predictability fail.  However, if that is the analogy I wouldn't go into the sage territory of saying no one can understand them, because even chaotic fluid flow such as smoke can be understood in a larger sense by setting parameters of operation. Ie, certain things that are physically possible won't happen in a specific chaotic system and that provides understanding of the limits of possible behavior.

FWIW I agree with this exactly.  Yes, economics and social processes are far more complex and chaotic than the simplistic neoclassical understanding of such, and economists could stand to be a lot more humble and less in love with their models and their priors.  But, we do have the ability to model chaotic and/or emergent processes to a point, and we likewise do have the ability to understand economics and other social processes, to a point.  We're not flying completely blind here, that's obviously silly.  I thus have a good deal of sympathy with Mersault's POV, while at the same time not really agreeing with it much.

[traininthedistance]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=1442;sa=showPosts

I'd imagine this would what Snowstalker smoking weed would be like.

Weed makes me a Hillarybot? I know what I'm staying away from then.

Not just a Hillarybot, a homophobic Hillarybot.

[traininthedistance]

Liberalism, at least the most vocal, internet-focused factions, is becoming more and more like a cult, silencing heretics at every opportunity.

[traininthedistance]

Good gravy, intactivists are the worst.

[traininthedistance]

I oppose Gentile circumcision as an unnecessary symptom of the Judaization of European culture facilitated by Christianity.

well then