If I can't trust a 20 year old to buy alcohol...

[The_Second_Stone]

@emacknight

Good, we agree on that fact. Each of those committed acts would cause you to reflect on the person’s character.

@emacknight

Why is this a criminal act?

It is not a criminal act to refuse to commit a crime. This strikes me as you misreading what I wrote. If the 20 year old refuses to purchase alcohol, he has not committed a criminal act. A person who solicits a 20 year old to purchase alcohol has solicited the 20 year old to commit a crime. It is a crime because the legislature has duly passed a law making it a crime and has the authority to do so.

@emacknight

What crime? I needed someone to pick up a few things, one of which contained alcohol. I didn’t need anyone to rob a liquor store? The act of buying alcohol is perfectly legal for almost everyone.

The is probably the key to your misunderstanding. The crime is asking the 20 year old to buy alcohol. The fact that you might also require the 20 year old to purchase other items is totally irrelevant. Your claim that you didn’t need anyone to rob a liquor store is irrelevant and if more fully developed would amount to a straw man. While the act of buying alcohol is legal for many people, it is not legal for anyone under 21. You seem to have more than just a philosophical disagreement over whether this law is wise, you have attempted to coerce someone to commit a crime in your protest and deem and employee “untrustworthy” for refusing your solicitation of a crime. As almost a side note, your emphasized use of “almost” is also disputable. Over a quarter of the population is 20 and younger. Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia

@emacknight

Sure, if you like this analogy, it also works, but you’re going to have to follow through with it. So look at the age of consent. Twenty years old is considered old enough to have sex, so is 19 and 18. Below that we recognize that judgement is an issue. Not just for sex, but for driving, marriage, and a variety of other contractual obligations.

You seem to be arguing here that just because some jurisdictions have the age of consent at 18, it should be the same to purchase alcohol. My jurisdiction has the age of consent at 18. And alcohol 21. You seem to be arguing that these are equivalents. They are not. Alcohol is an intoxicant and not a human right. Sex is not an intoxicant, and a human right for adults. People who engage in sex are not at a higher risk of driving dangerously after having had sex, with or without other people in the car.

@emacknight

So if you want to use that as an example, the intern in question would be 15 and I’d have plenty of reasons not to hire 15 year olds. By the time the intern is 20, alcohol (and sometimes car rentals) is the only issue left.

If for your purposes the only reasons not to hire a 20 year old are booze and car rentals, well so be it. But it has nothing to do with the general trustworthiness of a person who refuses to break a law. I would trust this 20 year old over you in any matter concerning honesty or integrity because he refused to break the law that you commanded, and you blame him for it and cannot even see that from the point of view of the law abiding public that you have committed a crime and would do so again if it were in any way convenient for you. Soliciting crime in others is not a small matter, but goes to the heart of moral turpitude because it corrupts others.

@emacknight

No, that was just your desperate attempt at a straw man.

I think you need to re-read what you wrote. I understood your OP to cast the aspersion of untrustworthiness on the 20 year old because he refused your criminal solicitation. Perhaps you did not intend to communicate that, but it is a reasonable interpretation of your original OP and your follow up posts.

@emacknight

What are those reasons? Can you name some?

Don’t be obtuse. The brain of a human being does not fully form its judgment abilities. http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm Alcohol further impairs already impaired judgment. They drink alcohol and drink it to excess and are likely to supply it to other teenagers (and I’m including 20 year olds in the general term teenager here, despite the fact that the word does not end with “teen”). It is an intoxicant that can and does cause brain damage and death at higher rates in the very young because of this worsened and compounded misjudgment. http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm

@emacknight

And while you might not think it controversial, what it means is that 20 year olds will have fewer job opportunities as a result.

Yes, they will have fewer job opportunities below the age of 21 due to people sharing your views. Only a very small handful of legislators, out of the thousands in the US have ever offered bills to allow minors to handle liquor. You are the very first to come up with an argument that these liquor laws not only make them less hireable (which they do), but that it reflects on their trustworthiness as employees.

Had you not developed the idea so adroitly over the thread I would have attributed your opinions to misunderstandings of words like “trustworthy”. But it comes off as your contempt for people wanting to comply with the law you think is stupid when it would be more convenient for you that they violated laws.

[Joey_P]

While I still plan to sit back and watch this thread, something just dawned on me. If the drinking age were 18, then you would have deemed this employee trustworthy, correct? Why is it that his trustworthiness is based on a law? As of right now, you feel he does not deserve your trust, but if the law were changed tonight, then in the morning you would trust him. If how much you trust the people around you is based on the drinking age in the US, that’s very strange.

[Garfield226]

Confusing thread is confusing.

Your CEO pokes his head in the door and says, “Hey, Jimmy, we need a new electrical receptacle in my office over near the south wall. I want to plug in my toaster over there!”

“Sorry boss, I’m no licensed electrician, we’d better get someone else for that job.”

“Jimmy, I can no longer trust you. You’re fired.”

[raindog]

I thought it might be a good thing to teach my daughters to change a tire. (in addition to AAA cards) Those skills may save a life one day. Alas, one of them wasn’t strong enough to break the lug nuts.

I’ll never trust her again.

[erislover]

Whether you trust a particular person to buy alcohol is different from the government trusting all such individuals to buy alcohol. I cannot imagine a mentality which fails to admit such a distinction.

[Ambivalid]

Ok so how would a fake id affect things here?? Could you trust a 20 yr old with a fake ID, as long as he could buy the booze?

[The_Second_Stone]

@erislover

Whether you trust a particular person to buy alcohol is different from the government trusting all such individuals to buy alcohol. I cannot imagine a mentality which fails to admit such a distinction.

Yes, but that isn’t the distinction the OP tried to make. The OP isn’t criticizing the government for passing a law that casts a net that is too wide. He is criticizing the 20 year old for refusing to violate the law at his majestic demand. This isn’t the case of a government passing a less than perfect, yet pretty good law. The OP had no problem with the law or the 20 year old until he refused to break the law, upon which time he did not conclude that the government was some form of right wing “too much regulating”, but rather that the 20 year old is untrustworthy in a sense that he cannot be counted on to get the bosses’ will accomplished. His objection was pretty clearly that the 20 year old wouldn’t do his bidding.

If you won’t break the law for the OP, you are untrustworthy. That’s why I opined that it was like an organized crime outfit: where they literally won’t let someone join unless they will break a crime while the others watch to verify.

[thelabdude]

One more thread I wonder how it can go on and on.

[kferr]

@The_Second_Stone

You seem to be arguing here that just because some jurisdictions have the age of consent at 18, it should be the same to purchase alcohol. My jurisdiction has the age of consent at 18. And alcohol 21. You seem to be arguing that these are equivalents. They are not. Alcohol is an intoxicant and not a human right. Sex is not an intoxicant, and a human right for adults. People who engage in sex are not at a higher risk of driving dangerously after having had sex, with or without other people in the car.

You’re doing it wrong.

[emacknight]

@Garfield226

Confusing thread is confusing.

Your CEO pokes his head in the door and says, “Hey, Jimmy, we need a new electrical receptacle in my office over near the south wall. I want to plug in my toaster over there!”

“Sorry boss, I’m no licensed electrician, we’d better get someone else for that job.”

“Jimmy, I can no longer trust you. You’re fired.”

Not at all what I’m saying. But consider, if that scenario played out the way you said, with that answer, wouldn’t the CEO be justified in wondering what other electrically related jobs Jimmy is qualified for?

Now, what if instead, Jimmy said, “I’m only 20 so I can put a plug on those three walls, but the government says I can’t put it on that one.” Does that make any sense?

As far as the OP goes, “Jimmy” has put plugs on several walls showing he is more than capable. Except for one certain grouping of walls the government says he can’t touch.

Our intern is perfectly capable of going to the store and buying a bottle of red wine vinegar then returning with the receipt and change. But it’s the government (and society) that says he and anyone else that’s under 21 is too untrustworthy to buy a bottle of red wine.

So I have to wonder, if a 20 year old is consider too untrustworthy for such a simply task, what else should we trust them with? Electrical wiring, like driving a car, is dangerous enough to warrant needing a licence. But notice that a 20 year old can do it. We trust them to wire something correctly, but don’t trust them to buy alcohol.

[emacknight]

@jtgain

What they are saying is that enough people under the age of 21 are irresponsible enough to buy alcohol to justify making the legal purchase age 21 because we are too damned lazy to come up with any other system than a hard, bright-line age.

Okay, and that’s my point. The government (and our society) has said people under 21 are too irresponsible to buy alcohol. So why should I as an employer not do the same thing? If I have two applicants, one is 20 and the other 21, is it fair for me to simply dismiss one as irresponsible?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@emacknight

Okay, and that’s my point. The government (and our society) has said people under 21 are too irresponsible to buy alcohol. So why should I as an employer not do the same thing? If I have two applicants, one is 20 and the other 21, is it fair for me to simply dismiss one as irresponsible?

Isn’t there a middle ground? The government has also declared that 18+ are responsible enough to marry, sign contracts, fight in the army, get credit cards, be a legal guardian etc.

Why grasp that one thing and issue a blanket statement?

[Odesio]

@emacknight

Okay, and that’s my point. The government (and our society) has said people under 21 are too irresponsible to buy alcohol. So why should I as an employer not do the same thing? If I have two applicants, one is 20 and the other 21, is it fair for me to simply dismiss one as irresponsible?

You win. Don’t hire anyone under the age of 21.

[Joey_P]

@emacknight

Our intern is perfectly capable of going to the store and buying a bottle of red wine vinegar then returning with the receipt and change. But it’s the government (and society) that says he and anyone else that’s under 21 is too untrustworthy to buy a bottle of red wine.

Are you guys still bickering with someone that thinks comparing red wine vinegar to red wine is a valid argument? It’s like yelling at a brick wall.

By the way, you can certainly justify it in your own head however you want, but you’re certainly well within your rights to dismiss the twenty year old applicant since they are not able to fulfill all the necessary duties you require them to do. Honestly, no one would argue with you for doing that…but I think you want them too.

[robert_columbia]

@Inner_Stickler

The OP can’t trust anyone under 25 either if he needs someone who can rent a car. Young people these days, aging chronologically. I’m sick of it, I can tell you!

Also, Non-Americans can’t be trusted because they are not guaranteed entrance into the United States. If I tell a British intern to hop on over to New York for the week and find out that he got denied entrance after being anally probed while being asked about the violent short stories he wrote in 5th grade, that just means that he’s unreliable and a liability to the company, stupid British person who can’t even guarantee that they’ll be able to make it to New York.

[Joey_P]

@robert_columbia

Also, Non-Americans can’t be trusted because they are not guaranteed entrance into the United States. If I tell a British intern to hop on over to New York for the week and find out that he got denied entrance after being anally probed while being asked about the violent short stories he wrote in 5th grade, that just means that he’s unreliable and a liability to the company, stupid British person who can’t even guarantee that they’ll be able to make it to New York.

You know who else can’t be trusted…the handicapped. There’s all kinds off things they can’t do.

[sciurophobic]

@emacknight

Okay, and that’s my point. The government (and our society) has said people under 21 are too irresponsible to buy alcohol. So why should I as an employer not do the same thing? If I have two applicants, one is 20 and the other 21, is it fair for me to simply dismiss one as irresponsible?

Wrong. The governments has said that people under 21 are too irresponsible to drink alcohol. The prohibition on purchasing is there because it would be difficult to verify that the 20 year old is not buying for himself, but for his alcoholic boss.

[campp]

@emacknight

Through no fault of his own he had made himself untrustworthy. I couldn’t rely on him to perform a simple task–go to a store, buy something, then bring it back.

:dubious:

The employee you speak of is trustworthy in this situation. You, on the other hand, are not. I hope your employees are watching their backsides with a boss like you.

[handsomeharry]

@VinylTurnip

If you’re honestly this perplexed by such a minor issue, maybe you can’t be trusted with the responsibility of hiring employees at all.

(Yes, I realize this “conundrum” is just the latest example of your semi-coherent campaign against government overreach, but let’s pretend your question is a serious one just for fun.)

Well, I’m wondering why he hired somebody to do a job that required liquor purchases without even asking if the intern was qualified? Was the OP even aware if the kid was over 16?

Does the OP even know the legal age for purchase of liquor in his state, or did he just take the kids word for it?

Is the purchasing of alcohol a part of the kids legal job description? Was it mentioned in the hiring process? Is it a violation of the intern agreement?

OP needs to know these things before going around giving out duties to those whom he deems untrustworthy. If Op doesn’t know any of this, he is woefully underperforming, or else HR needs some reinforcement.

[handsomeharry]

@emacknight

Okay, and that’s my point. The government (and our society) has said people under 21 are too irresponsible to buy alcohol.

No, society and the government haven’t said that. Society and the government have said “It is illegal.” Individuals comprise these elements, and, as such, have differing reasons, which may include irresponsibility.