As said, that’s a truism. What possible reason would one have to say it?

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.

Whether it’s a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.

It seems like a quite pointless discussion since you both seem to have already decided your minds.

They don’t accept your sources? Why? If they really are valid and they just cherry-pick sources, then there is no way of convincing them.

On the other hand, you also just seem to dismiss their counterarguments without much thought. If they can give a counterargument for your every argument, then maybe your arguments actually aren’t good?

But isn’t it obvious that if a presidential candidate promises some legislation, that it is contingent on the legislative branch?

Didn’t pursue codification into law in his first hundred days j

As (again) a non-american, doesn’t that require both chambers to support the legislation?

I’m not even american, so I’m not sure what you arw on about right now. All I asked was how Roe v. Wade being repealed was Biden’s fault, and the answer apparently is that he did not pack the court.

How genocide fits into Roe v. Wade, or how callling me names somehow helps I’m still unsure of.

Never let it be forgotten that Roe v. Wade was struck down during a Democrat administration

Ok, but what does that have to do with said denocrat administration? What say did they have in the matter? What could they have done to change the outcome?

Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.

How about the current system where we vote and do science?

You forget a piece: “Given these observations, these objectives, and this bit of sound reasoning, …”

Without objectives, no amount of reasoning will tell you what to do. Who sets the objectives?

Good question.

The light output would be the same because there is still only one light source. But as you note, some of the “light” would be absorbed by the wall, so the room would be brighter if you had a mirror. Not twice as bright though, because the wall also “reflects” light, otherwise you would not see the wall.

So, would it make sense to have mirror walls to maximize room brightness? Maybe not, because what the walls end up doing is actually scattering the light, meaning light is spread out evenly, wheras with the mirrors you would have some bright areas (corresponding to the lamp) and some darker areas.

You would think so, but int* a, b is actually eqivalent to int* a; int b, so the asterisk actually does go with the name. Writing int* a, *b is inconsistent, so int *a, *b is the way to go.