Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

You don't say? 19 year olds who spent over a decade playing violent video games enjoyed putting on camo and bringing their video games to life? Who would have thought. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's good for you or you were intellectually developed enough to make the choice to do it.

Young men enjoying war is THOUSANDS of years old, it did not start with the violent video game generation, nitwit.

I don't think the homeless, mentally ill vets on the streets with PTSD are enjoying themselves after they get out of the military and finished killing people.

They are in no way representative of the millions of men who have gone to war for thousands of years.

Anonymous wrote:College might be your only chance to study Gregorian chant or read Tolstoy or ask yourself whether you believe in utilitarianism. Go for it. Smart, realistic, self-aware people with a good work ethic and strong critical thinking, research, and writing skills will figure out a way to make enough money -- and maybe even have some fun doing it.

Strongly agree with this sentiment, but did want to point out that there is a local high school where nearly all students study each of these: SAAS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

What is the point in training someone HOW to use, but not actually using them? A large percentage of enlisted are only in for their initial 4 years--so typically getting out around age 22. Since you mention that you don't think they should go into combat until their brain is "fully developed" (around age 25?) do you really think the government should train, house, feed these Marines for 7 years before actually being able to get a return on their investment (able to put them in combat?)

A friend of mine was in the Israeli army. His job was a musician. He never fired a gun besides target practice. There are cooks, drivers, people who fix machines, mechanics, etc. Tons of jobs within the military that don't involve combat. Yes, I think that's reasonable. Train people to do a job, have them do the job for however long for the military, then they can leave with skills and experience to put on their resume.

Well that's the Israeli army not the United States Marine Corps. The Marine Corps also has a band, and every single active duty member is still a rifleman. During war, they DO deploy into theater and have a specific role to fill that has nothing to do with music.

Nobody has started a war with the US since ... Donald Trump. I don't believe 18 or 19 yr olds should be on the front lines, fighting for people's lives. You're not going to change my mind.

🤷🏻 You can’t fix stupid. And you packed a lot of stupid into a two-line post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

You don't say? 19 year olds who spent over a decade playing violent video games enjoyed putting on camo and bringing their video games to life? Who would have thought. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's good for you or you were intellectually developed enough to make the choice to do it.

Young men enjoying war is THOUSANDS of years old, it did not start with the violent video game generation, nitwit.

I don't think the homeless, mentally ill vets on the streets with PTSD are enjoying themselves after they get out of the military and finished killing people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

What is the point in training someone HOW to use, but not actually using them? A large percentage of enlisted are only in for their initial 4 years--so typically getting out around age 22. Since you mention that you don't think they should go into combat until their brain is "fully developed" (around age 25?) do you really think the government should train, house, feed these Marines for 7 years before actually being able to get a return on their investment (able to put them in combat?)

A friend of mine was in the Israeli army. His job was a musician. He never fired a gun besides target practice. There are cooks, drivers, people who fix machines, mechanics, etc. Tons of jobs within the military that don't involve combat. Yes, I think that's reasonable. Train people to do a job, have them do the job for however long for the military, then they can leave with skills and experience to put on their resume.

Someone has to be in combat. The most effective soldiers are men age 18-22. The people in non-combat jobs should be older men and women.

PS the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, not to provide job training and resume building FFS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

What is the point in training someone HOW to use, but not actually using them? A large percentage of enlisted are only in for their initial 4 years--so typically getting out around age 22. Since you mention that you don't think they should go into combat until their brain is "fully developed" (around age 25?) do you really think the government should train, house, feed these Marines for 7 years before actually being able to get a return on their investment (able to put them in combat?)

A friend of mine was in the Israeli army. His job was a musician. He never fired a gun besides target practice. There are cooks, drivers, people who fix machines, mechanics, etc. Tons of jobs within the military that don't involve combat. Yes, I think that's reasonable. Train people to do a job, have them do the job for however long for the military, then they can leave with skills and experience to put on their resume.

Well that's the Israeli army not the United States Marine Corps. The Marine Corps also has a band, and every single active duty member is still a rifleman. During war, they DO deploy into theater and have a specific role to fill that has nothing to do with music.

Nobody has started a war with the US since ... Donald Trump. I don't believe 18 or 19 yr olds should be on the front lines, fighting for people's lives. You're not going to change my mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

You don't say? 19 year olds who spent over a decade playing violent video games enjoyed putting on camo and bringing their video games to life? Who would have thought. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's good for you or you were intellectually developed enough to make the choice to do it.

Young men enjoying war is THOUSANDS of years old, it did not start with the violent video game generation, nitwit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

What is the point in training someone HOW to use, but not actually using them? A large percentage of enlisted are only in for their initial 4 years--so typically getting out around age 22. Since you mention that you don't think they should go into combat until their brain is "fully developed" (around age 25?) do you really think the government should train, house, feed these Marines for 7 years before actually being able to get a return on their investment (able to put them in combat?)

A friend of mine was in the Israeli army. His job was a musician. He never fired a gun besides target practice. There are cooks, drivers, people who fix machines, mechanics, etc. Tons of jobs within the military that don't involve combat. Yes, I think that's reasonable. Train people to do a job, have them do the job for however long for the military, then they can leave with skills and experience to put on their resume.

Well that's the Israeli army not the United States Marine Corps. The Marine Corps also has a band, and every single active duty member is still a rifleman. During war, they DO deploy into theater and have a specific role to fill that has nothing to do with music.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

Why not? They might "enjoy it."

There are lots of things they might enjoy that I don’t want them doing.

If you want your kid to move right back to their home area after college, don't send them to college more than a 2 hour drive away. The closer the better, if they are going to be pressured to "come home" after college.

If your kid doesn't like school, encourage them to find something else to do rather than go to college. If you have the money for them to socialize for 4 years, that's great. Otherwise, encourage something else or community college if you don't have the money.

I loved college, and grad school, but it's not for everyone and that's fine.

Anonymous wrote:College might be your only chance to study Gregorian chant or read Tolstoy or ask yourself whether you believe in utilitarianism. Go for it. Smart, realistic, self-aware people with a good work ethic and strong critical thinking, research, and writing skills will figure out a way to make enough money -- and maybe even have some fun doing it.

You’ve got this backward. Smart people will figure out a way to “study Gregorian chant or read Tolstoy or ask yourself whether you believe in utilitarianism” without paying $300,000 for it. They will go to college to make enough money to make that $300,000 education pay off.

The days of “go to college to acquire knowledge for its own sake to make you a better person” are long gone. The humanities and liberal arts departments that sell that line of propaganda have priced themselves out of the market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

What is the point in training someone HOW to use, but not actually using them? A large percentage of enlisted are only in for their initial 4 years--so typically getting out around age 22. Since you mention that you don't think they should go into combat until their brain is "fully developed" (around age 25?) do you really think the government should train, house, feed these Marines for 7 years before actually being able to get a return on their investment (able to put them in combat?)

That's how it works for future officers at the service academies.

And then the officers are obligated to several years of service--so the military IS guaranteed a return on their investment in the form of trained officers.
If Joe Schmo enlists in the military at age 18 and learns how to use a weapon, but can't actually use it...then gets out at the end of his enlistment at age 22, the military has received no value from training, feeding, housing and paying him these past 4 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people need to go to trade schools. They should develop a 4 year trade school program at universities where you also come out with a joint trade / bachelors degree. A lot of people think a degree is important but then don’t want to put the time in later to get into the trades.

I live in San Francisco, and 83% of elevators have expired permits. I'm typing this right now from a building where the permits expired in 2019. They don't have enough elevator inspectors. Average salary in SF for this is $77k.

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/san-francisco-elevator-expired-permit-17405899.php

Can’t make it in SF on that salary

As I said. I LIVE in SF, so know exactly how much you need to "make it" and it can be done if circumstances are right. Maybe they live in a family home that's been owned since the 70's, out in the Avenues. Maybe they live in Walnut Creek or wherever and commute into the city. Maybe their partner has a higher paying job and combined, their salary lets them afford to rent a 1 bedroom apartment. I was just talking with the copy guy this morning - he owns a house in the 'burbs with A/C. I earn more than him, live in the city, can't afford to buy, and don't have A/C.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the people who love to virtue signal and preach to the contrary, prestige matters. Attending an elite school can change the trajectory of one's life in huge and little ways.

I literally know law partners the same age, with the same salary, where one went to Yale and Oxford and another went to community college and state schools.

I wonder which of those colleges taught the difference between "can" and "you'll definitely have a better life than those community college plebeians?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

Why not? They might "enjoy it."