<p>1of42. Hmmm. Did you read my post? I’m not a hard liner on this. I DO think there’s a difference between having a beer at home with our son and hosting a beer pong competition. And I said it doesn’t seem right to US. And no, I didn’t appreciate that the hosting parents at our son’s senior prom after-party set up a beer pong party. This crosses the line…they’re not just dealing with THEIR children in that situation. Where does it stop? Would it be OK for me to host a neighborhood crack party?</p>
<p>MomofWildChild, yes it would be nice if it were that simple =] I’m not offering a suggestion for how to change it though. I’m just stating my view of the problem and how I think it should be. Unfortunately, as you say, simply saying it’s illegal don’t do it is not sufficient. </p>
<p>1of42 - unfortunately, your morality is not above the law. Nobody’s is. Polygamy is perfectly moral for some people, but that does not mean they cannot be punished for it. I’m not saying our legal system is perfect. I’m not even saying I agree with the drinking age law. What I am saying is that if we live in this country, we should respect it enough to abide by its laws, whether we like them or not. My ‘morality’ is that it is ‘moral’ to be law abiding. But that’s completely irrelevant. Morality is never applicable because it is subjective. Laws, on the other hand, apply to everyone and we need to abide by them until we either move or change them.</p>
<p>Are there legal consequences for giving your child a drink in your home? Probably not. It just goes back to what I was saying before about character.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you are encouraging drinking alcohol when it is illegal? I understand I’m not going to change anybody’s mind here. I also understand that I’m not going to be able to stop underage drinking.</p>
<p>
Puhlease!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you’re willing to spend time in jail to protest the law? If you think it’s immoral and unjust, work to change it! Don’t just disregard it.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild - I think it does seem ‘silly’ to give your kid alcohol at home, just because you know he’s drinking in college. I think it would be better to severely punish him until he changes his ways. But that’s just me, I guess.</p>
<p>Anywho, since you bring it up, I figure I’ll mention what I think could be done to fix this widespread problem.
Either:
- Legalize all alcohol consumption. No minimum age. This may be drastic for my generation (those who are used to drinking already excessively underage may kick it up a notch now that they can be even less private about it), but I think future generations would be much more responsible from a young age. There would be no ‘mystery’ for anyone, so there wouldn’t be an issue for those too weak to be able to withstand the ‘wonder’.
or - Severely crack down on enforcement, starting on college campuses.
I’m more for the first one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh? Really? You do, of course, see the inherent contradiction in your argument “morality is subjective” yet “My ‘morality’ is that it is ‘moral’ to be law abiding” - thus, at the same time, you criticize morality for being subjective and yet assume the deontological maxim of always following laws to be a universal one.</p>
<p>My point is, laws are simply products of the processes by which they are made. They have no inherent morality or immorality - a set of moral ideas and proscriptions against actions does not become a moral maxim simply because it is coded into law.</p>
<p>Just as I would not pay any attention to someone telling me not to smoke marijuana (unless it were for a very good reason), I will not listen to the law (which is, remember, simply a product of the people that make it) when it tells me to do the same.</p>
<p>Civil disobedience, the heart of grassroots democratic change, is predicated entirely on the idea of disobeying unjust laws in a way that is not destructive and does not infringe upon anyone’s rights. So long as my disobeying an unjust law does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights, I will disobey that law if I feel it unjust or immoral. Period.</p>
<p>It is also something you should note that many of the unjust, unconstitutional laws that are brought down in America have been thrown down by persecution of those who disobey them, resulting in challenges to the laws in legal courts. Since one cannot challenge the laws (by lawsuit, or through a process of appeals) without first disobeying them (which is, of course, why the ACLU often cherrypicks people who disobey the laws in order to challenge them - see the Scopes Monkey Trial), one could even argue that disobeying laws deemed unjust could be the most effective and direct way to change such laws.</p>
<p>In all, your “following the law is a moral maxim” argument is really very simplistic.</p>
<p>toneranger: Sorry if my post to you seemed overly strident. My point was, judging parents solely by their actions you deem wrong is overly simplistic. I guess I’m speaking a bit from personal experience here, since many parents on this forum would probably deride at least one set of parents I know for their habit of hosting beer pong events for my group of friends, despite the fact that these parents are fair, open-minded, and have raised their children very well and created an excellent, loving family. It just seems wrong to me that they should be pre-judged by so many for actions that are, if immoral, only very slightly so.</p>
<p>Your point about allowing others’ children to do things that their parents might not is of course a good one, and I do acknowledge it. As for neighborhood crack parties, I think that that is of course a fine line, one that parents must decide for themselves. :)</p>
<p>MIDN2012:</p>
<p>I am sure your saintly-self does not have so much as a parking ticket. Sorry, but we can not all be as scrupulous as you. Maybe you should show our benighted selves the way.</p>
<p>Be nice, qwilde. Disagree with the message, not the messenger. ;)</p>
<p>MIDN2012 said:
“I think it would be better to severely punish him until he changes his ways.”</p>
<p>I LOL’ed at this. Are you serious? This is a college age student we are discussing. What do you propose? Send him to his room for the entire time he is home on winter break? Perhaps a time out chair with a video camera in his dorm room? Understand that if you continue to treat an adult child this way he will eventually greatly resent you and you won’t see too much of him anymore. Newsflash it’s time to let junior grow up.</p>
<p>Let’s play nice, folks.</p>
<p>
Notice my use of quotes, and, perhaps, the statement, “But that’s completely irrelevant”.</p>
<p>
Stop saying moral. It has nothing to do with anything. We all have “moral intuition” but it has no influence in discussion. You have your’s and I have mine. You are moral for following it…the only way you could do something immoral would be to do something you actually believe is immoral. [But this is kind of off-topic]. </p>
<p>And I agree, my argument is quite simplistic.</p>
<p>Your Civil Disobedience bit is a good point. But in terms of the minimum age for alcohol? This law is harming no one. As I said in my last post, I don’t think it is the best law to accomplish its goal (apparently we agree there).
But again, that’s not my preferred route. If it’s yours, that’s fine, I just disagree with it.</p>
<p>But let me know when your ‘civil disobedience’ (i.e. giving your child alcohol in the privacy of your own home) changes any laws.</p>
<p>parents don’t realize how dangerous it is for a child to start college without prior drinking experience. its extremely unfortunate, but because binge drinking is so prevalent at college campuses, if a student jumps right into that atmosphere without having experimented with alcohol, it may become very dangerous for them. drinking in a private residence with parents is definitely legal in most states, in fact, during my freshmen year of high school our principal even held an assembly for us and explained it to us. because you have always exhibited responsible drinking habits, i think it is perfectly fine to allow your children to have a drink with dinner. if teens are strictly kept away from it, it may become a type of forbidden fruit for them and when they can legally access it they may go a little alcohol-happy. you seem like you have taught them to be responsible, it shouldnt be a problem to allow your older children to have a drink with dinner</p>
<p>MID:</p>
<p>I find your Kantian total obedience rather specious. And simply to assume that a person who fails to obey one specific law will apply that same pick and choose mentality to all others is a slippery slope; a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>
I agree. To reinforce what I said earlier, this is a problem because too many kids don’t have the fortitude to stay loyal to any kind of conviction. And this is why I think the best option would be to get rid of the minimum drinking age.</p>
<p>
I apologize if I made this assumption. If I did, I was not aware. Could you point it out to me?</p>
<p>interesting debate</p>
<p>So much about the “law” and “legality” and little about the actual young adults involved</p>
<p>They can sign contracts, get prescriptions for all kinds of mind altering drugs, they can, as someone else mentioned, go to war on your behalf, the are responsible if they impregnate someone, they can get the death penalty, they can are legally responsible for themselves in ALL ways, except the can’t have a beer</p>
<p>And, as someone else mentioned, generations of Americans somehow worked, got through college, raised famiiles and built this amazing country with a drinking age of 18.</p>
<p>I was in upstate NY, I was 18 when they changed the law to 21…was I somehow less mature?</p>
<p>And seems the US has the HIGHEST drinking age minimum in the world</p>
<p>
I would rather abide by a law that harms no one than secretly break it in the privacy of my own home, accomplishing nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aha! I do have a speeding ticket =D</p>
<p>Where were you when they were handing out Congressional Gold Medals? The law imposes upon my freedom. It is not my transgression; it is the states.</p>
<p>I would accuse you of being duplicitous via tu quoque, but I am above the logical fallacies.</p>