# Diogenes The Cynic **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 18, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546 "2004-11-18T21:43:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/61 "2004-11-19T01:09:17Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I checked to make sure there wasn’t a **Dion** in this thread so I’m sure you must have been talking to me? > > Did you get that from another thread, I don’t think I mentioned it in this one? > > I was in Liberia because me father was in the State Department and was doing a tour at the American Embassy in Monrovia. I went to a private American high school while I was there and actually graduated from it. I was lucky. I was there between coups and got out before the war started. 1. Yes, for some reason I added an “n” between the “g” and first “e” in your username. 2. You meantioned it in the “What class are you?” thread. It was asked of you then (be someone other than me), and you didn’t answer it then. 3. Thanks for answering. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/62 "2004-11-19T01:09:45Z")
Why do they have to _attend_ the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside? ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/63 "2004-11-19T01:21:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No, I think 20 is too old for these drinking laws. I’d lower it to 18…maybe even more. OK, thanks for clarifying. But the point that law-abiding teenagers aren’t responsible for their peers’ stupid behavior still stands. And scaring them into being little informers is stupid too. (Yeah, yeah, I know, underage drinking is dangerous and leads to date rape and car accidents. I don’t disagree that it can. But the keg parties I went to in high school were monitored by responsible parents who took away keys at the beginning of the night, and everyone got home safe. Seems to me that as a society, we should progress towards laws that promote that kind of behavior rather than make everyone associated with underage drinking a criminal.) ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/64 "2004-11-19T01:28:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why do they have to _attend_ the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside? And move the party outside so neighbors can complain about the noise? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/65 "2004-11-19T01:31:48Z")
So, anyone want to make odds on **Diogenes** ’ daughter getting Catholic Schoolgirl Syndrome when she’s a teenager? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/66 "2004-11-19T01:32:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why do they have to _attend_ the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It says that some girl claims she was twice ticketed not for driving drunk friends home but **while she was picking them up.** In other words, she got busted at a couple of parties and tried to say after the fact (and I have no reason to believe her) that **she was only there to pick people up and give them rides**. I don’t particularly believe her but **even if it’s true, my point still stands. She was busted for being at the parties, not for driving people home.** (bolding mine) Evidently even if they only stop by and walk into the house, some folk won’t care. Or are we going to say that pulling up in front is cool but walking in to get your friends is a crime? And, the law that was refrenced mentions cars as well as houses. So under the law, even pulling up to the curb and getting them would be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/67 "2004-11-19T01:35:52Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > (bolding mine) > > Evidently even if they only stop by and walk into the house, some folk won’t care. > Or are we going to say that pulling up in front is cool but walking in to get your friends is a crime? > And, the law that was refrenced mentions cars as well as houses. So under the law, even pulling up to the curb and getting them would be illegal. It only applies to cars if someone is _drinking_ in the car. And yeah, that’s right, pulling up outside and waiting is acceptable. Going inside is not. It might not be fair but if we do it any other way then every kid in there is going to say there were just picking someone up. I don’t believe that girl, btw. Once maybe, but not twice. It sounds like a story made up for mommy and daddy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/68 "2004-11-19T01:37:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, anyone want to make odds on **Diogenes** ’ daughter getting Catholic Schoolgirl Syndrome when she’s a teenager? You think I’m a puritan, you should meet my wife. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/69 "2004-11-19T01:42:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It only applies to cars if someone is _drinking_ in the car. Thank you, I’d misread. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And yeah, that’s right, pulling up outside and waiting is acceptable. Going inside is not. It might not be fair but if we do it any other way then every kid in there is going to say there were just picking someone up. Something here is squirly, but I do not grok in fullness. I’ll meditate on it this evening. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t believe that girl, btw. Once maybe, but not twice. It sounds like a story made up for mommy and daddy. Or a responsible friend who kept picking her friends up despite an idiotic law. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/70 "2004-11-19T01:46:41Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why do they have to _attend_ the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside? Becuase they aren’t chauffeurs? You know people even under the drinking age enjoy going out on the weekends? Why don’t we extend this concept to other aspects of life: Drive anywhere? Well you better hope no one else is speeding on the highway or you will get a ticket. Walk anywhere in the city? Better hope no one is jaywalking while your walking down the sidewalk or you will get ticketed. Work at Enron? Better hire some lawyers to help you defend yourself after all you were in the building where all these crimes took place. Also Diogenes care to answer why only underage people should be ticketed under this law? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/71 "2004-11-19T01:47:30Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why do they have to _attend_ the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside? Man you are a whole lot smarter than this. You are one of the smartest guys here as far as I can tell. I look for your posts because I know I will be entertained and informed. Here is the deal. It is perfectly OK to pull up outside. No one is saying that pulling up outside is bad. Can you invent for me a scenario where where one kid says to another “Look, I’m going to a party where illegal stuff is going to happen and I need a ride home so how about pulling up outside beforet he cops get there.”? This rant is about kids who are behaving responsibly being busted because other kids \*are not \* behaving responsibly. HOW STUPID IS THAT? Why not just say that anyone who is in the presence of a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker? Let’s say you go to a party (as an adult) where someone is smoking pot in the bathroom. Or someone is having illegal sex in a bedroom. (You know, crimes against nature, adultery, etc.) Should _you_ spend the night in jail? Admit it. This is a stupid law!!! ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/72 "2004-11-19T01:48:02Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > And yeah, that’s right, pulling up outside and waiting is acceptable. Going inside is not. It might not be fair but if we do it any other way then every kid in there is going to say there were just picking someone up. > > Something here is squirly, but I do not grok in fullness. > I’ll meditate on it this evening. Allow me. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > They don’t have the time to sort out who’s really drinking and who isn’t, > > So let’s just kill 'em all and let God sort is out? > Oh, I mean, arrest 'em all and don’t sort 'em out? > > (would you be happy if we applied this logic to Iraq? Anybody near someone with an AK should be blown to pieces, I’m just making it easier for the troops, right?) > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > and they’re all going to say they weren’t drinking, > > Oh, if only someone had invented a scientific test to determine blood alcohol content! If only! > Guess we can only arrest 'em all. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/73 "2004-11-19T01:55:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by FinnAgain > Quote: > Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic > They don’t have the time to sort out who’s really drinking and who isn’t, > So let’s just kill 'em all and let God sort is out? > Oh, I mean, arrest 'em all and don’t sort 'em out? > > (would you be happy if we applied this logic to Iraq? Anybody near someone with an AK should be blown to pieces, I’m just making it easier for the troops, right?) > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic > and they’re all going to say they weren’t drinking, > Oh, if only someone had invented a scientific test to determine blood alcohol content! If only! > Guess we can only arrest 'em all. I know and all those drunks act perfectly normal! Only if they were boisterous, obnoxious with breath that smelled of alcohol! Only then maybe just maybe we could tell who was intoxicated! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/74 "2004-11-19T02:18:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I agree that it’s necessarily arbitrary but isn’t it also necessary? > > Never mind the drinking issue, what about just general legal accountability? At what age should a person be legally able to enter into a contract, join the army, lease a car and work in the porn industry? This could easily fill a thread on its own, because I think you and I have extremely contrary views on human development. I’ll try to manage as brief a summary of my views on this as possible, here: I think that a thirteen-year-old naturally has the ability to make these sort of decisions for themselves. (Working in porn, of course, is a value-laden thing, as is serving in the military.) Here’s the thing: the way we implement the arbitrary division between childhood and adulthood continually defers development. We’re a culture of bonsai people, because we set up this imaginary line and then don’t allow people to start developing until they cross it. This isn’t _natural_, and it stunts people emotionally and intellectually. “You’re an adult! Now, start working on all that adult stuff!” Juveniles have the innate ability to learn and apply reason. We don’t encourage it, because “They’re just kids.” This is a relatively new development. Try reading a text book on formal logic intended for a Victorian ten-year-old, some time. It used to be a given that kids would learn logic as part of their early education, but with each generation we set the bar a little bit lower. Now it’s the received wisdom that sixteen-year-olds are incapable of rational thought. It simply isn’t so – it’s just that we’ve gotten out of the habit of encouraging it from them, instead incapsulating our young in a bouncy-castle reality for the most part until they’re ready to enter the adult world. As a result, most people are inadequately prepared to do anything except learn a role and jump into it. We start our adult lives as grown children. People who escape this fate are regarded as exceptional. “How precocious! Extraordinary! A seventeen-year-old that’s interested in more than sucking back Slurpees and playing Nintendo!” What a load of nonsense. This problem is illustrated beautifully by the amount of hand-wringing done in neck of the woods about asian immigrants who sometimes leave small children in the care of their older siblings. “How can we solve this problem of eleven-year-olds being left in charge of toddlers while their parents work?” It’s not a fucking _problem_. If an eleven-year-old isn’t equipped to look after a toddler, it’s because _something has gone horribly wrong with their development, and they’ve been absurdly hobbled._ It’s _our_ culture that’s sick. It’s not normal to wait until a kid is seventeen or eighteen to start giving them any real meat. We’re a culture that keeps pushing back development as long as we can. From the beginning. Even potty training is deferred as long as possible – in more and more cases for three years beyond the historical norm. The thing is, we put off that whole intellectual and emotional maturity thing for so long, that for many people, by the time they’re told it’s okay (or necessary) to start working on it, they don’t have the ability anymore, and go through life as aging children. More and more, important things are withheld from people because they’re not considered old enough to deal with it. People are condescended to their entire lives. People say “Fifteen-year-olds aren’t _equipped_ to deal with such-and-such,” and they think that they’re citing a natural law, instead of perpetuating an intolerable situation. > [@Diogenes](#): > > My fear is that unlocking the liquor cabinet for _American_ kids would just lead to unbridled binge drinking and fatalities. At least for the first generation. What’s different about American kids with regard to alcohol, _except the law?_ There’s no innate flaw in American kids that created the high legal drinking age, the high legal drinking age _created_ the inability to deal responsibly with alcohol. It’s the forbidden fruit effect, [the same as **smartini** observed at a toddler’s birthday party:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5499232&postcount=41) > [@smartini](#): > > I will never forget Matthew. […] His mom decided NO sweets would ever pass his lips. […] Then when he was about 2 years old he started getting invited to the birthday parties. At first his mom declined for him because of the dreaded cake and ice cream. Then her desire for he son to participate in the toddler social scene overrode her desire for nutritional nirvana so she brought him to a party. All the kiddies were seated around the dining room table with the requisite slice of cake and bowl of ice cream, as well as little paper cup of M & Ms. After singing “Happy Birthday” most of the children started eating and still yelling and talking and carrying on with each other. Matthew just ate. With both hands as fast as he could. He literally inhaled his sweets. And then started reaching for his friends cake and M & Ms. And what else would you expect? Thumb. Garden hose. > [@Diogenes](#): > > How would you suggest that we teach kids responsible use of alcohol (or pot, for that matter)? I would repeat **FinnAgain** ’s response: Education, communication, honesty. Accept no substitutes. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/75 "2004-11-19T02:24:59Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > First you want to toss them in jail if they don’t report the crime, then you say you don’t really expect anyone to report the crime. Yeah, I’d say you backed down a bit. Actually, that doesn’t sound like backing down at all. He’s saying what he wants and what he expects to happen. Two separate thoughts there. Not to disrupt a good mobbing, but let’s try to keep things on the up and up. All this fuss over Dio makes me think of that ole Far Side chestnut “Bummer of a birthmark Hal.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/76 "2004-11-19T02:31:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t knpw how we could bring about that kind of broad change in cultural perception here, though. My fear is that unlocking the liquor cabinet for _American_ kids would just lead to unbridled binge drinking and fatalities. At least for the first generation. We could always lower the age gradually. If the age were immediately lowered to to 18 that would definitely be too much too fast. If we lowered it to 18 that way it’d take 9 years. A decade would probably be enough for our society to adjust. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/77 "2004-11-19T02:32:55Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > We could always lower the age gradually. If the age were immediately lowered to to 18 that would definitely be too much too fast. If we lowered it to 18 that way it’d take 9 years. A decade would probably be enough for our society to adjust. Argh. Let me restate. If we lowered the age by one year every three years. So in 2007 the drinking age is 20. 2010 It’s 19. 2013 it is 18. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/78 "2004-11-19T02:37:44Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Actually, that doesn’t sound like backing down at all. He’s saying what he wants and what he expects to happen. Two separate thoughts there. Perhaps, but if that’s true why didn’t he bother to respond? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/79 "2004-11-19T02:40:14Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Argh. Let me restate. If we lowered the age by one year every three years. So in 2007 the drinking age is 20. 2010 It’s 19. 2013 it is 18. That makes sense to me. I got the impression that _Larry_\* was suggesting that we just summarily drop any age at all. I think that would be too sudden for our teenage culture to adjust well. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/80 "2004-11-19T02:42:37Z")
hm, they drink underage anyway, would this make it less likely to illegally obtain alcohol? or would it make it more likely the younger ones will drive drunk? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546.md?page=5)