-
Yes, for some reason I added an “n” between the “g” and first “e” in your username.
-
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.
-
Thanks for answering.
Why do they have to attend the party in order to drive someone home? Why can’t they just pull up outside?
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.)
And move the party outside so neighbors can complain about the noise?
So, anyone want to make odds on Diogenes’ daughter getting Catholic Schoolgirl Syndrome when she’s a teenager?
(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.
You think I’m a puritan, you should meet my wife.
Thank you, I’d misread.
Something here is squirly, but I do not grok in fullness.
I’ll meditate on it this evening.
Or a responsible friend who kept picking her friends up despite an idiotic law.
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?
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!!!
Allow me.
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!
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.
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:
And what else would you expect? Thumb. Garden hose.
I would repeat FinnAgain’s response: Education, communication, honesty. Accept no substitutes.
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.” 
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.
Perhaps, but if that’s true why didn’t he bother to respond?
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.
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?