# 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:** 7
**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, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/121 "2004-11-19T05:44:53Z")
> [@Roland Orzabal](#): > > Okay, whatever. The fact remains that you were voicing your support for the ideological correctness of that current law, correct? Because the other option is to say that all laws are ideologically correct by default…and I _really_ don’t think you want to do that. > > And, _unless_ you want to do that, then the argument is still on the ideological level, where statements of current law are irrelevant, and the topic of debate is “what YOU believe is right”. And if that is the case, then the burden is still on you to counter my argument, which I cannot help but note that your past two posts have ignored in favor of telling me what the law is. > > Of course, there’s always the ubiquitous option to admit that your original position was flawed. You could do that, too, you know. I’m not sure I follow your point. You’re saying the law is not ideologically sound? Well, I disagree and I’ve already explained why. Why should that have any implications as to my feelings about any other laws? I’m saying _here’s_ a law I agree with and here’s why. What’s the problem? With the rape thing I was (I thought) making a factual correction about legality but I also think it would be hugely wrong ideologically not to report a rape. My opinions don’t follow the laws, I’m just making approving noises when the law and my feelings coincide. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/122 "2004-11-19T06:12:05Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > As a male above the age of 18, I have an affirmative legal duty to report for military service if I am drafted. If the government can lawfully call me to action in that kind of emergency, why can’t they call me to action in another type of emergency? More quoting of current law as an argument against an ideological construct. I believe that compulsory military service (and compulsory _reserve_ military service, which is what Selective Service amounts to) is wrong as well. Next question. > [@](#): > > Inaction can, in many cases, be a crime. If you dispute this I’m sure I can dig up a mountain of precedent that points to the contrary. Failure to report a rape makes you an accesory or an accesory after the fact. If you don’t like the idea that you have to lift a finger to help your fellow human beings, move to a fucking desert island because you don’t belong in society. You’re right; I don’t like the idea that I _have_ to. I don’t like anybody telling me that I cannot make a choice that does not directly harm anybody else (for the record, that would include the choice not to act in any given situation). _Nobody_ has the right to impose that sort of rule on anybody else. It’s the essence of freedom of choice. Now, I damned skippy _would_ do a lot more than lift a finger to help somebody who was being raped. I daresay I would put my own life on the line to help out in that situation. I would also refuse to associate with anyone who would choose to remain completely inactive in such a situation. Indeed, I would in all likelihood exercise my right to free speech by telling that person that they were a spineless, worthless waste of oxygen that should be ashamed at his/her own existence. The point is, just because I would choose to do that doesn’t mean that I have, or that anyone else has, the right to force others to make that same choice. You know the quote, “I find what you say to be reprehensible, but I will fight to the last your right to say it”? Well, I find the choice my hypothetical wuss-person has made reprehensible, but I will defend to the last his right to make it. I can judge him for it, but I cannot stop him from doing it. I simply do not have the right. Neither do you, and neither does anybody else. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/123 "2004-11-19T06:15:25Z")
> [@John Stuart Mill](#): > > A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amenable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector. What do you think about that line of reasoning, **Roland?** Do you think there’s any kind of exception at all where _not_ preventing injury should be punishable? I’m thinking of something drastic – along the lines of a 9/11 situation. If I have information about a possible attack, for example, and don’t report it, should I be legally untouchable when the tragedy goes down just like I knew it would? ---
**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, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/124 "2004-11-19T06:23:01Z")
Here’s a simple question. If I witness a murder do I have a moral obligation to report it? Answer: Yes. Should there be a _legal_ obligation to report it? Answer: Yes. As far as rape goes. There is a moral obligation and a legal obligation. If you don’t think there _should_ be a moral observation them fuck you, you’re wrong and it doesn’t make much sense to cite your own personal nihilism or amorality or twisted sense of libertarianism or _wherever_ the fuck you’re coming from as some sort of proof against my own ideology or my approval of an existing law. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/125 "2004-11-19T06:24:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m not sure I follow your point. You’re saying the law is not ideologically sound? Well, I disagree and I’ve already explained why. Why should that have any implications as to my feelings about any other laws? My point is that you’re saying you agree with the law in question. Assuming that you believe that the law _ought_ to be grounded in ideology, there are two reasons for your agreement with the law – any law – as it stands. Either you have ideological beliefs above the level of the law itself that support it, or you believe that the law as it stands is the ultimate source from which all morality is derived (thereby absolving you from needing any ideas of your own). Trust me, that second standpoint is not a wise one to uphold. If you instead uphold the first – that is, if you have ideological beliefs that serve as the basis of your support for this law – then your beliefs must be in contrast to the argument I have presented. Thus far, you have not outlined these beliefs, nor indeed _any_ beliefs. You have only told me what the law is, and that you agree with it. I know you agree with it. I’m asking you _why_. > [@](#): > > I’m saying _here’s_ a law I agree with and here’s why. No, you are saying “here’s a law, and I agree with it, because it’s the law.” You haven’t provided any reasons why, beyond the law itself. > [@](#): > > What’s the problem? With the rape thing I was (I thought) making a factual correction about legality but I also think it would be hugely wrong ideologically not to report a rape. My opinions don’t follow the laws, I’m just making approving noises when the law and my feelings coincide. The problem is that I have provided you, via my argument, with a reason _not_ to agree with the law. You have, thus far, not responded to it. If your opinions don’t follow the laws, and they just happen to intersect on this particular occasion, then what, other than the law, _is_ the basis of your opinion? ---
**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, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/126 "2004-11-19T06:25:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If you don’t think there _should_ be a moral observation… Shit. I botched this two different ways. That should say, “if you don’t think there’s a _legal obligation_,” then fuck you, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/127 "2004-11-19T06:30:25Z")
Oh, okay, there’s your response. “It doesn’t make any sense to cite your personal ideology as a basis for an opinion.” Oh, and of course “Fuck you”, which all told is about equally constructive. So, if your opinions aren’t based on the law itself, and if it doesn’t make any sense to base one’s opinions on one’s personal ideology, then I’ll ask again: what _is_ the basis of your opinions? Do you just make them up at random and go with them? Is it just a “gut feeling” kinda thing that you don’t feel compelled to apply any logic to? Really, what is it? ---
**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, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/128 "2004-11-19T06:33:36Z")
[QUOTE=Roland Orzabal] My point is that you’re saying you agree with the law in question. Assuming that you believe that the law _ought_ to be grounded in ideology, there are two reasons for your agreement with the law – any law – as it stands. Either you have ideological beliefs above the level of the law itself that support it, or you believe that the law as it stands is the ultimate source from which all morality is derived (thereby absolving you from needing any ideas of your own). Trust me, that second standpoint is not a wise one to uphold. If you instead uphold the first – that is, if you have ideological beliefs that serve as the basis of your support for this law – then your beliefs must be in contrast to the argument I have presented. Thus far, you have not outlined these beliefs, nor indeed _any_ beliefs. You have only told me what the law is, and that you agree with it. I know you agree with it. I’m asking you _why_.]quote] Bullshit. I’ve done nothing _but_ explain why I support this law. have you read the fucking thread? > [@](#): > > No, you are saying “here’s a law, and I agree with it, because it’s the law.” No I fucking haven’t. A couple of times people asked me why I would want to punish behavior that wasn’t illegal, and I was making the _factual_ point that I don’t happen to be doing that _in this case_, but I haven’t said that I support the the law _because_ it’s the law. > [@](#): > > You haven’t provided any reasons why, beyond the law itself. Bullshit. Read the thread. > [@](#): > > The problem is that I have provided you, via my argument, with a reason _not_ to agree with the law. I disagree. I find your argument to be shite. My argument for\* the law is infinitely more sound. > [@](#): > > You have, thus far, not responded to it. Yes I have, I told you it was shite, what little I can understand of it. You seem to have some notion of complete legal irresponsibility in all cases. You haven’t provided much of a coherent defense for that, though. > [@](#): > > If your opinions don’t follow the laws, and they just happen to intersect on this particular occasion, then what, other than the law, _is_ the basis of your opinion? Read the thread. ---
**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, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/129 "2004-11-19T06:36:13Z")
> [@Roland Orzabal](#): > > Oh, okay, there’s your response. “It doesn’t make any sense to cite your personal ideology as a basis for an opinion.” Oh, and of course “Fuck you”, which all told is about equally constructive. > > So, if your opinions aren’t based on the law itself, and if it doesn’t make any sense to base one’s opinions on one’s personal ideology, then I’ll ask again: what _is_ the basis of your opinions? Do you just make them up at random and go with them? Is it just a “gut feeling” kinda thing that you don’t feel compelled to apply any logic to? Really, what is it? Hey, asshole, READ THE FUCKING THREAD! I’ve presented ideological arguments all over the fucking thing. What the fuck are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/130 "2004-11-19T06:49:41Z")
> [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > What do you think about that line of reasoning, **Roland?** Do you think there’s any kind of exception at all where _not_ preventing injury should be punishable? I’m thinking of something drastic – along the lines of a 9/11 situation. If I have information about a possible attack, for example, and don’t report it, should I be legally untouchable when the tragedy goes down just like I knew it would? Yes. I know, it sucks. It sucks a lot, and you hate it. It leaves a rotten taste in your mouth. I hate it too, and I taste the bitterness just as much as you. EVERYONE hates it; it is human nature to hate it. But no matter _how_ much it sucks, and _how_ much we hate it, we cannot allow ourselves to deviate from doing what is RIGHT. I’ve already explained why the severity of an action does not alter the principle behind it – which, in this case, is the principle that inaction cannot be legislated against – and I now point to that explanation again, because it answers your question in its entirety. To argue that inaction is punishable only in cases of (severity X) is to attempt to draw a line which none of us – NOBODY – has the right to draw. A side point, but one that you might find comforting: it really isn’t as bad as it sounds. You know why? Because we _do_ all hate it. If I knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen, you bet your ass I would tell somebody. So would you. And I would bet every possession I own that so would _every single person reading this post_. Having the right to act in a manner we find distasteful does not under any circumstances mean that everyone, or even most, are going to choose to do so. It also doesn’t mean that everyone is going to accept or tolerate those who do choose to do so. Just because we concede that something should not be _illegal_ doesn’t mean we have to think that it’s _okay_. There are methods of punishment other than those provided for by a legal system. Many of them can be quite harsh…and, in some cases, much harder to bear than mere imprisonment. The legal right of the individual to decide in matters such as this does not allow him to escape from retribution for making choices other people disagree with. Legal retribution, yes…but we, as a people, have other methods. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/131 "2004-11-19T07:03:05Z")
But we, as a people, _are_ the law. That’s how it’s supposed to work. If you’re down with some kind of popular retribution against someone who fails to act to prevent injury, you’re talking about vigilante justice, which has all the trappings of the law, without the legitimacy of actually being the law. If, as you say, you have such faith in your fellow man that you’re sure such justice would have popular support, why not make it official, so to speak? Why does legislating it change the nature of the retribution, if we’ve agreed that retribution is warranted? On a slightly different note, you say that the severity of an action does not alter the principle behind it. I think I can agree with that, but that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as nuance. In other words, there’s no reason that something which is slightly bad has to be treated the same as something really bad, just because the principle of the thing is the same. If we have a law that says you’re obligated to divulge information pertaining to impending disaster, that doesn’t necessitate a law compelling me to call 911 if my friend doubleparks. The principle’s the same, the severity’s different, and like that Mill quote says, there are times when the injury is clear and grave enough to justify an exception to the principle. If you’re going to have laws, you’re going to have to draw lines. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/132 "2004-11-19T07:12:59Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Personally, I think we would be much better served by NOT having a drinking age, but having strong DUI / drunkeness laws, and having good enforcement of those laws. Amen. From what I’ve heard, China doesn’t have a drinking age. There could also be a “buying age” of 18, the idea being that an adult must provide you with ethanol or you don’t get it. Too often the law is concerned with “preventing things absolutely, never!” when what is appropriate is a little friction in the system, things that increase the cost (monetary or otherwise) of performing the undesired behavior. Kids are going to drink. But it’s a good thing that they’ve got to go through a few hoops to get their juice. At the very least, though, we should have a national drinking age of 18. College students should be able drink without all the fake ID BS. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/133 "2004-11-19T07:53:41Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Here’s a simple question. If I witness a murder do I have a moral obligation to report it? > > Answer: Yes. > > Should there be a _legal_ obligation to report it? > > Answer: Yes. > > . If I winess a minor misdomeaner- or a Code violation, or a traffic Infraction- should there be a Legal obligation to report it? You do understand that in CA if a person over18 but under 21 drinks- it isn’t even a violation of the Penal Code- it is in th e"Business & Professional Code" and it carries a fine $28 LESS than a car-pool lane violation. DtC- we weren’t talking about MURDER for Gods saks- we were talking about an extremely minor violation. But do you really call in every speeder and red-light runner? And if you fail to do so- shoudl you go to jail? That way lies Madness and the end of Freedom. Secret Police and “Camps”. Yes, if it is a “crime against humanity”- then you really should report it. Not an underaged drinker for gods sake you moron. :rolleyes: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/134 "2004-11-19T07:58:04Z")
Okay, **Diogenes**. You claim to have made ideological arguments “all over the thread”. You tell me repeatedly to read the thread. Okay, I’ll read the thread. The following is an analysis of every post you have made, one by one, to which I have not already directly responded. You tell me what I’m missing. I am honestly not trying to be a smartass here. I’m also not trying to be excessive. I just do not see where you have given any ideological arguments. Everything you have said seems to be rooted entirely in pragmatism (“the ends justify the means”, or “any law that prevents underaged drinking is correct”). > [@](#): > > Cripes, not again. This is like the fourth time I’ve been pitted in the last month. > > In context, I was just supporting a local ordinance which would allow the cops to bust kids at underage drinking parties even if they’re not actually drinking. I think the law would be a good deterrent. A night (or even just an hour or two until the parents show up) in jail can be a very good thing for some kids. No ideology here, just a blanket statement that you support the law. You give one reason for doing so (it’s a preventative measure), but it is rooted in pragmatism rather than ideology. You are citing its impact on real-world occurences and claiming that the ends justify the means, rather than presenting an abstract concept of why the law is morally right. > [@](#): > > People can’t learn from mistakes? > > I’m not excusing my teenage behavior, it was disgraceful. My point was that getting arrested was a good kick in the ass for me. It woke me up. If it hadn’t happened I probably would have spun out even worse. More pragmatism. “It helped me, therefore it may help others”. The ends, once again, justify the means. That is not an ideological argument. > [@](#): > > I don’t really expect anyone to call the cops, but the have the option to leave and if they decide to stay they shoud know that they are now fair game when the party gets busted. > > And since when can’t we pass judgement around here? To be really specific, I was just expressing an opinion about an existing ordinance. That counts as assholery? In this post, you state only that you are expressing an opinion. No arguments here at all, ideological or otherwise. > [@](#): > > Should we not have a drinking age? This is a question. Clearly, no argument is being presented here. > [@](#): > > I’m saying don’t go to parties if you don’t want to get busted. You’ll understand when you grow up…maybe. Here, you once again _define_ your position, but make no attempt to justify it. > [@](#): > > Where the fuck do you get the “dodgy” thing, btw? What am I dodging. > > Yes, son, I am _judging you_\*, so fucking what? Two questions. No arguments. > [@](#): > > Have I backed down from this? > > I really mean it. If you’re underage and you’re at a kegger you’re fair game when the bust comes. Why the hell shouldn’t you be? You would be if it was any other drug. What’s the difference? Here you again state your support for the law. You make the point that there are other laws that concur with it. No mention of any personal beliefs of any sort. > [@](#): > > What’s responsible about going to watch people commit crimes? Question. No argument presented. > [@](#): > > Larry, I said in the other thread I thought the age should be 18. I agree 21 is too old. Statement of opinion. No argument presented. > [@](#): > > Let’s not twist this around and try to find conclusions that I haven’t drawn. I’m just talking about making life easier for the cops and the courts to bust drinking parties. They don’t have the time to sort out who’s really drinking and who isn’t, and they’re all going to say they weren’t drinking, so an ordinance like the one in question just allows the cops to throw everyone in the wagonon without having to listn to a lot of weasel stories from innocent lambs. > > I can’t see why it’s so terrible to make it illegal for minors to go to keggers. We don’t let them into bars even if they don’t drink. What’s the difference? > > The parties are socially popular? Who cares? The fact they’re popular is the core of the problem. We need to offer some strong incentives for them not to be popular. Here, we find two more arguments from pragmatism. First: it makes things easier on the cops. “If the law makes life easier for the cops and the courts to bust drinking parties, then the law is just”. The ends justify the means. Second: we need to create further incentive for minors not to go to keggers. “If the law creates further incentive for minors not to go to keggers, then the law is just”. The ends justify the means. The only other thing here is another statement of current law, namely, that we don’t let minors into bars. Not an argument. > [@](#): > > Why does being opposed to teen keggers make me an “authoritarian?” I think teenage binge drinking is more than a trivial problem and we should create strong disincentives for them to do it. > > That’s not quite what I said. I said it should be a felony if an adult has sex with a minor, not for two minors. > > I think you’re gettin a little carried away here. I havn’t suggested prison time for underage drinking and I’m not a moralist. I think drugs should be legalized. I think that adults- defined as those who reached an age of legal accountability- should be able to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt other people. As long as you’re a grown up, you can live like Caligula, but what’s wrong with having a line of adulthood? Here we have another argument from pragmatism: teenage binge drinking is more than a trivial problem and we should create strongdisincentives for them to do it. “If the problem at hand is beyond trivial, and the law creates strong disincentives for people to create the problem, then the law is just.” The ends justify the means. We also have an irrelevant statement about the rights of minors to sexual consent. We also have – BINGO! – an ideological argument about a related topic. The argument is: adults, defined as those who reached an age of legal accountability, should be able to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt other people. Okay, I’m making a note of that, and will deal with it at the end of this post. > [@](#): > > 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? > > The age is different for everyone of course, I’m 38 and I’m still not really a grown up yet, but we still need a legal bright line just to keep our society from falling into chaos. > > Hell, I might even be able to be persuaded set the age a hair lower than 18. 16 might work if it was consistent. > > As to the efficacy of prohibition, I’m generally in accord, but teenagers are physically more vulnerable to the effects of drugs and alcohol than adults (I can find cites if pressed) so I think that abuse should be discouraged and not reinforced as popular or cool. > > If there’s a way to do that without legal sanctions, I’m perfectly willing to listen. When I’ve been in Europe and other places where the drinking age was lower or non existent, the "coolness’ factor in getting wasted didn’t really seem to be there ad I think it was because there’s no rebellion in it. Getting puking drunk is just seen as lame. It’s not that Kids don’t drink, they do, but it’s considered uncool to overdo it. > > 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. > > How would you suggest that we teach kids responsible use of alcohol (or pot, for that matter)? This is a statement of opinion, a sociological theory, and a question. No argument presented. [quote] 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. [quote] Irrelevant aside. No argument presented. > [@](#): > > I do tell people that because it’s always a possibility even with protection. What I mean by that is not that sex should only be for procreation but that when people choose to have sex or choose partners they should ask themselves if they could handle a pregnancy and if this is a person they could handle it with. > > The above applies only to fertile heterosexuals, of course. If you’re fixed or if you’re gay, no worries, mate. This is a statement that people should consider the consequences of their actions before they do them. It is a borderline ideological/pragmatic argument, since it could be said that the law in question prevents children from taking actions whose consequences they have not considered. I will make a note of it, and deal with it at the end of this post. > [@](#): > > No, I think 20 is too old for these drinking laws. I’d lower it to 18…maybe even more. Statement of opinion. No argument presented. > [@](#): > > Why do they have to attend the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside? Question, with roots in a pragmatic argument that has already been presented. No new argument presented. > [@](#): > > 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. Here we find another pragmatic argument, and one hell of one at that: it might be unfair but if we do it any other way then every kid in there is going to say they were just picking someone up. “Unfairness is acceptable if it prevents undesirable consequences”. Essentially a point-blank statement that the ends justify the means. Good, at least we know your position on that. > [@](#): > > You think I’m a puritan, you should meet my wife. Joke. No argument presented. > [@](#): > > 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. Argument from pragmatism on a semirelated topic: dropping the drinking age entirely would be too sudden for our teenage culture to adjust well. “If it is too difficult for our teenage culture to adjust well to the law, then the law is unjust”. The ends justify the means, therefore, if the ends are bad, the means must be bad as well. > [@](#): > > When you’re getting reamed by twenty people at once it’s kind of hard to keep track of which dick is where. Irrelevant aside. No argument presented. I have directly responded to all of your posts subsequent to that. So, that leaves us with two ideological arguments. One: “Adults of legal age should have the freedom to do essentially as they please as long as they don’t harm anyone else”. Okay. I’ll buy that. But the opinion you’re stating here is that minors should _not_ have that freedom, which is no way implied by the statement above. All you’ve really done is weaken your own case by granting an ideological right to certain group, and then taking it away from another group without providing your justification for doing so (other than all the arguments from pragmatism, which I’ll address shortly). Two: minors should be prevented from taking actions whose consequences they have not fully considered. Well, from what I can tell, your working definition of a minor is “one who, by law, has not yet reached the age at which they can responsibly consider the consequences of their own actions”. So, going by Axiom 2, minors should be legally prevented from acting. I have a hunch that’s not the entirety of your point, but you haven’t stated any additional arguments that would allow me to be sure of that. Everything other argument you have made is, as I have shown above, rooted in the pragmatic axiom that the ends justify the means. This is in inherently non-ideological position. You yourself explain _why_ this is so when you posit that fairness (an ideological cornerstone) is unimportant as long as we achieve the desired effect. That is as good a definition of pragmatism as any I have ever heard. It is not ideological. I can go on to illustrate exactly why “the ends justify the means” is not a wise position to adopt, but I would hope I need not do so. If I’m wrong, just let me know. As you can see, I’m more than willing to be through if need be. So, there we go. You’ve made two ideological arguments, one of which goes _against_ your stated opinion, and one of which, lacking any relevant context, makes it immoral for a person under the legal age of adulthood to take any action whatsoever. You’ve also stated (erroneously, I hope) that you believe in hardline pragmatism, which has nothing to do with ideology and is actually the root of a good deal of evil. So…after all that…my question remains. Are you going to present your own arguments in response to mine, or not? ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/135 "2004-11-19T08:28:53Z")
:eek: But :eek: **Roland** , you’re my hero. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/136 "2004-11-19T09:18:39Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > 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: Brilliant post. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/137 "2004-11-19T09:29:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think it’s necessary to the health and safety of these girls to protect their privacy in what is ultimately a completely personal decision about their own bodies. I think drinking Jack Daniels is ultimately a completely personal decision about one’s own body. You’ve got some logic system there, **Dio**. A 15-year-old getting a scrape is OK because that’s privacy and a decision about her own body, but if she has a drink with her buddies or fucks a 40-year-old (up the Hershey highway!) so that she ends up wanting the scrape, then it’s no longer “private” and “personal” and a “decision about her own body.” Which the fuck is it? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/138 "2004-11-19T09:31:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > …I said it was an “absurdly stupid analogy”… I was using an extreme example to make a point… Well, uh, how about not doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/139 "2004-11-19T09:34:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Teenage binge drinking is extremely self-injurious behavior. Yes, because “binge” by definition is injurious. You have a thing for loaded terms. > [@](#): > > They are literally poisoning themselves (and alcohol _is_ a poison), and one should feel no more comfortable watching it than watching them huff gasoline or snort crank. Having a scientific mind, you know that the poison is in the dose. Caffeine is also a poison at high enough doses, but teens are allowed to drink espresso. By this logic, we should not let adults drink either, since their doing so is like huffing gasoline. What have you been huffing that has fuct your brain up bad enough to output shit like this? ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546/140 "2004-11-19T10:41:15Z")
> [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > But we, as a people, _are_ the law. That’s how it’s supposed to work. If you’re down with some kind of popular retribution against someone who fails to act to prevent injury, you’re talking about vigilante justice, which has all the trappings of the law, without the legitimacy of actually being the law. If, as you say, you have such faith in your fellow man that you’re sure such justice would have popular support, why not make it official, so to speak? Why does legislating it change the nature of the retribution, if we’ve agreed that retribution is warranted? Because our agreement is nothing more than the sum of our individual judgements. We cannot come together to impose this “communal will” onto others as a matter of legislature. Just so we’re clear, I’m not imposing that we mob the guy; it’s still wrong to inflict physical harm on another individual. But society has a long and prosperous history of letting the communal will be known in ways which are neither legislatural nor physical in nature. I’m not necessarily (necessarily, mind you) _advocating_ that this will occur…I’m just stating it as a highly likely point of fact. > [@](#): > > On a slightly different note, you say that the severity of an action does not alter the principle behind it. I think I can agree with that, but that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as nuance. In other words, there’s no reason that something which is slightly bad has to be treated the same as something really bad, just because the principle of the thing is the same. If we have a law that says you’re obligated to divulge information pertaining to impending disaster, that doesn’t necessitate a law compelling me to call 911 if my friend doubleparks. The principle’s the same, the severity’s different, and like that Mill quote says, there are times when the injury is clear and grave enough to justify an exception to the principle. If you’re going to have laws, you’re going to have to draw lines. Indeed. I personally draw the lines based on a theory of my own creation, which I have named the Direct Effect Theorem. It is stated thus: “The people who have the right to impose judgement the morality of an action are those people with the possibility of being directly affected by the action itself.” Key terms: _impose_ judgement, _possibility_ of, _directly_ affected. The bases for this theorem are simple. One: all humans are equal, therefore whatever right to judge is possessed by one human, is equally possessed by all humans, and whatever right no one single human has, no number of humans (no matter how large) has. Two: following from this, humans do not have the right to impose upon the rights of another human, as that would make one person’s rights superior to those of another. Three: humans have the basic right not to be affected by another human being against their will. Four: violation of another human’s rights should be punishable in a manner deemed just. (That last one is a debate in and of itself as to the definition of “justice”, but that definition is irrelevant here, so just ignore the issue for the time being.) Following from these, if an action violates Group X’s right not to be directly affected against their will, they may impose their judgement upon it, and the person undertaking the action they have judged to be Wrong may then be punished in a just manner. So, take a random topic. Let say…oh, murder. Murder is (loosely defined) the deliberate killing of another human being. Those with the possibility of being directly affected by this action: human beings. So, under this theorem, all human beings are therefore allowed to impose judgement on it; i.e., make it legal or illegal by majority rule. Regarding murder: the majority have decided that they do not want to be able to be legally killed. Ergo, murder is made illegal. Now let’s take…how 'bout marijuana use. Those with the possibility of being directly affected by marijuana use: the marijuana user. Yes, the marijuana user may act under the influence of marijuana in ways that affect other people…but those are direct effects of the marijuana _user_, and therefore _indirect_ effects of the marijuana itself. So, under my theorem, the user is the only one with the right to impose judgement on the morality of his/her own marijuana use. Ergo, it’s a personal decision. Other people are welcome to _form_ judgements on it, they just don’t have the right to _impose_ (i.e., make into law) their collective judgements. The only issue I’ve found where this theorem does not provide a definitive and rational solution to the problem at hand would be abortion, and that is because we do not know for certain when human life beings. If you believe that it begins at conception, then under the direct affect theorem, abortion at any point after conception directly affects another human being against his/her will, and therefore we can impose judgement on it. If you believe that it begins in the third trimester, then before that point, it does _not_ directly affect another human being, etc, etc. You see where this gets sticky…but the problem lies in our own ignorance, not in the application of the theorem. So yes, to establish laws, we must delineate. I would, however, draw only those lines which I believe basic human rights _allow_ us to draw, inasmuch as those lines impose our wills on other people. I would use the Direct Affect Theorem as my barometer for whether or not we have the right to impose our individual judgements on any given action. Now, let’s apply the theorem to the scenarios you’ve described. You are sitting on your couch while, on the floor in front of you, a woman is being raped. Action taken by you: sitting on your couch. Those with the possibility of being directly affected: you…and, if your couch happens to be sentient, then it too. A definite _indirect_ effect of your chosen action in this scenario is that nobody prevents the woman from being raped. The rest of us may, as I outlined above and in previous posts, make all the judgements about this we like. I sure as shit would. We may not, however – no matter how horrific we may find you – impose our collective judgements upon you for undertaking this action; for your actions, in and of themselves, have harmed nobody. Actions have differing degrees of severity. Actions have differing degrees of nuance in their context. But regardless of any of these, the action is what it is, and the principle behind the action is what it is, and if these two elements form a certain conclusion, then that is the one to which we are bound by our own moral law. To state otherwise is to state that one man’s right to choice is greater than that of another, and – reprehensible though some of those choices may be – that is something that simply cannot, and must not, be done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-the-cynic/275546.md?page=8)