He directly stated that I, a completely law-abiding older teen (who has a job and pays taxes) should be arrested and jailed for not narcing on friends of mine who were drinking a beer, to teach me a lesson. He can kiss my ass.
Sure. I’m not sure exactly what days I’ll be there (my wife’s family lives in Devils Lake and we’ll spend part of our vacation there. Actually, the weekend after New Years is probably a good time for me. Do you have an email address in your profile? If not email the one in mine. Hopefully we can set up a time to go grab a beer. Too bad there won’t be Sioux game on.
No, I think you’re too old. I’m also trying to make it clear that I’m mostly only talking about parties and binge drinking, not a 20 year old watching his 19 year old roommate drink a beer. I agree that would be stupid.
I think it would serve to help marginalize the parties as being socially acceptable and reinforce the message that the underage binge drinking is self destructive and not endorsed by society.
Hold tight, Diogenes…I may well be about to draw fire away from you and onto myself. Nonetheless, you asked, so I must respond truthfully.
You give yourself too little credit; the ideological relation between the two examples is indeed present and sound.
I wouldn’t?
In the words of our beloved President, you misunderestimate me, my friend. Merely abstaining from action, however reprehensible you or I may find it (and, lest you think otherwise, I would judge someone who stands idly by and watches a rape to be the dog shit in the cracks of the soles of the shoes of the scum of the Earth), cannot morally be made a punishable offense. Why? Because they didn’t do anything. Inaction placed in context continues to be inaction. By my ideology, you must do something before you can be punished for having done something wrong. Sitting in a chair at home, and sitting in a chair at home (while someone is raping a girl on the floor), are the same action. The only difference is that one makes you an asshole. A grade-A, 1000-metric-ton, Champion Cockface Of The Universe level asshole, granted. BUT. Being an asshole, regardless of how others may (and, to be absolutely certain, will) personally judge you for it, is not something that we can rightfully legislate against. Period.
The parallel you drew between the two situations was apt indeed, Diogenes. They do in fact stem from different branches of the same ideological principle. The problem is, that principle is exactly the one illustrates our lack of moral right to punish people for conscious choice of inaction. In the case of rape, it may seem as though we have more “right” to do so than in the case of underage drinking – but that is nothing more than the logic of the situation being blurred by the severity of the action in question. Hard as it may be to accept, the severity of the crime does not alter the principle behind it. Rape and kicking someone in the butt can both be morally considered punishable by law, because both consist acts of violence performed upon on another person against their will. Hanging around while somebody engages in underage drinking and hanging around while somebody engages in rape both CANNOT be morally considered punishable by law, because both consist of refusal to actually partake in the illegal activity in question.
It seems wrong. It isn’t. It’s just difficult to accept.
It’s in my profile. Send a message around then when you know you’ll have some time. Maybe we can catch the Packer’s playoff game if they have a bye. 
How?
As I’ve tacitly suggested, lots o’ teens eat rebellion up like ice cream.
I don’t think that there are many adults in their lives who’re telling them that dangerous drinking is cool, so how will it help to have to have even more adults telling them that it’s not cool?
Obviously adult disaproval aint working, why ‘throw more good money after bad?’
I would suggest that if you really are serious about wanting to change what is socially acceptable, then you need to change the society kids find themselves in. Easiest way to do that?
Education, communication, honesty.
If kids friends start saying “You’re going to get drunk till you puke? Are you a moron or something?”
Kids wouldn’t drink as much. (IMHO)
If, however, it’s Kids Vs. The Man, well…
As another poster pointed out, during Prohibition Americans drank more than ever before, on principle.
Okay, but how do you reinforce that message if you bust their friends?
I mean, aren’t we using the whipping-boy defense here?
“Well kid, you had a few beers, and we’re going to take your buddy here and throw him in the slammer. I hope this teaches you a good lesson!”
Okay, I find that slightly less distasteful. You don’t have to eat shit or die. I too think that something should be done by sober teens when others around them are potentially harming themselves, or planning to drive.
I believe you’re wrong about the law as it pertains to witnessing a rape. It’s my understanding that if you have knowledge of a violent crime and do not report it, you become an accessory. the specific statutes may be state by state but I’m fairly certain there is a legal obligation to report such a crime to the police even if you don’t or can’t stop it.
Wrong. Failure to act should be criminlaized in situations where people have undertaken a duty, and then not acted on it. If I say I will take care of a child, and then fail to do so, I can rightly be charged. And while it requires an affirmative act (the creation of the duty) it is my failure to act that would be punished.
My goal is to marginalize the parties by making them a less appealing place to want to go. If an ordinance like this (and I agree it could use some tweaking) scares enough of the non-drinkers out of going to these parties it might decrease the desires of the drinkers to hold them since a pretty good percentage of those who go don’t drink, and since a disincentive like letting them know they’ll be rousted along with the drunks, sit in a cell for a few hours and have to make that call to mom or dad might discourage enough of them from going that the hardcore partiers will be marginalized themselves, and the parties will become more uncool as social events. My goal is to make binge drinking uncool by discouraging the drinkers’ friends (including girlfriends and boyfriends) from wanting to be around them while they’re doing it.
It’s called the Good Samaritan Law. (Sorry atheists, that’s the name) I don’t think it’s Federal and probably varies state to state. However, I think it’s seen shaky at best, and laughable at worst depending on your lawyer and what judge you have. I’m not even sure if there have been a decent number of convictions under it.
In short, it works this way (and why it was made a law). If a doctor, or even nurse, is strolling down the street and sees someone bleeding to death in dire need of medical care, they have an obligation to help the victim. Often, people in large metro areas would continue to walk on to avoid getting involved. (One of the good things I like about my city, this doesn’t happen)
Good in theory, but then the courts and lawyers noticed how often paramedics in ambulances with flashing lights get shot at, in addition to the exposure to a malpractice suit if the victim dies, putting the off-duty med professional at risk of not only bodily injury, but also financial ruin or criminal charges for leaving.
Well yeah. If you take on a prescribed legal duty (signing a contract, having a child, what have you), and then, through inaction, you fail to uphold your end of the bargain, you have committed a crime. If you have legally committed yourself to act, then inaction is criminal. But that’s a different situation entirely from what has been described above, where no such duty has been undertaken. And, to anticipate this irrational argument (though not necessarily from you): acceptance (or rather, failure to reject) one’s own existence does not constitute an acceptance of obligation to actively take a stand against every possible injustice, even under the most desperate stretch of social contract theory. In other words, don’t tell me that if we make a law that says you have to act to stop rape, then you have that prescribed legal duty simply because you exist in a place where that law happens to be. It’s bullshit.
I believe you are correct. That, to the best of my knowledge, is currently what the law says. If you will recall, though, we were not debating what the law says. We were debating what we believed the law ought to say. You brought the argument to that level when you proposed altering the law to make it punishable for minors to be at a kegger. I responded with an argument that that law would be ideologically unsound, and have given my reason. Your attempt to counter that by quoting the current law at me implies that you accept current law as a concrete measure of morality. That is obviously not the case, since A) that makes no sense and B) you proposed amending it in the first place. Either counter my ideological argument with one of your own, or stop arguing entirely.
Ah, but I was talking about current law. The ordinance in question is one that is already on the books. I was expressing support for a law that already exists, not in theory but in reality.
Maybe you didn’t see the thread that spawned this one?
:smack: And, of course, trying to make that analogy went haywire. It was supposed to show that sometimes doing what’s right isn’t always necessary to avoid charges.
To bring what’s morally right into what someone should do as long as they aren’t harming anyone else will easily get us right back to the abortion issue. It isn’t one life, but that’ll derail this thread into the Arctic.
(To be resurrected in 3 years when Global Warming melts the ice and sends it flooding over the east coast)
DIo the perceptual gap is simply too huge.
I think that punitive measures should be a last resort and education should be our first ‘line of defense’.
You seem to believe otherwise.
I don’t really have the strength to get all the tacit assumptions and assertions out into the light of day and then debate them, so I’ll leave this thread alone for right now.
Just one final word:
Repression, fear, and punishment will never equal education, communication, hoensty, compassion, concern.
Never.
Not in effectiveness, not in soundness-of-theory, not in the ability to change lives for the better.
Of course we shouldn’t. Can you provide us with any reason for thinking that having a drinking age is a good idea? Zillions of European kids grow up in a society where 9 year olds can drink alcoholic beverages if they so choose, and Europe isn’t a world ravaged by alcoholism and alcohol-induced unfortunate behaviors (give or take silly things they do at football games).
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.
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?
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.