<p>Ad hominem has a specific definition – that, by assassinating my character, you are also attempting to debunk my arguments on a false basis. In this case, my accusing me of ■■■■■■■■ with justification, you are attempting to say that my posts contain nothing of value. I was just insulting you and your arguments, with no implied or explicit connection.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, in my opinion, adhering to that law would be acting immorally. Thus, that would be the basis for my disobedience. Anyway, this paragraph, if one assumes that the example applies, is basically laying out your position versus the sentiment expressed in mine. In other words, I get that, but I disagree, and so do others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am unable to continue what I never started. In no way did I claim that blind adherence of laws was…anything, given that I never once mentioned anything relating to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I’m saying, that some persons rationally disagree with you based on an internally consistent and reasonable system. Put differently, considering someone who rejects the notion of laws being inherently anything, only that, if followed, they produce results. The only laws which may be legitimately disobeyed are those that lead to immoral results. Therefore, there is no conception of “absurdity,” merely of benevolent versus malevolent implications of the law.</p>
<p>Granted, this is only one approach; there are many others that lead to the same conclusion – laws may only be disobeyed if immoral actions result (which, for some, could mean that the laws are immoral themselves – but this is not necessary).</p>
If I understand you correctly: You’re saying that even though it would be illegal for this person to apply for a job, it would be immoral for them to adhere to that law.</p>
<p>How is it immoral to refrain from submitting a piece of paper?</p>
<p>My point is that it’s not the refraining itself that is immoral, but the idea of the law in general (in my example).</p>
<p>
Fine. Lets return to the topic then, regardless of whether you started it.</p>
<p>Again, not everyone views laws in that fashion. For one who doesn’t, however, there is still the possibility of the consequences being immoral.</p>
<p>The consequence of that law (directly) would be the inability for persons to sustain themselves, and because sustenance within certain frameworks is a natural right, or at least one that we must have within human society, the outcome cannot be tolerated, and therefore there is a legitimate basis for disobedience.</p>
<p>These would be people, presumably, who would reject the notion of living off garbage as being adequate sustenance. The only relevant factor here is the internal framework of the person in question.</p>
<p>proud-mom,
Thank you for relating that interesting and sobering story. In my lifetime, I have known only one person who was prosecuted for possessing a false ID, and he claims it happened only because a police officer who stopped him for a bicycle violation on the 4th of July literally tore his wallet from his hands, went through it, and found it. (My friend also claims he responded with, “Excuse me sir, but I think you are violating my civil rights.”) It was a misdemeanor charge (not a felony) which was dropped after he attended 8 hours of MADD training.</p>
<p>How was the perpetrator in your incident detained by the store owner? I often wonder about this, because unless the perpetrator is actually caught and arrested by law enforcement, it seems to me they can simply walk away.</p>
<p>Bay: It was a long time ago, but my memory is that the kid, who was young and NOT streetwise, stayed at the store because the manager told him to. I don’t think they forced him to stay, I think the kid was scared of getting into trouble and had no idea that he would be arrested. Although I do remember him telling me that his parents knew he had a fake ID so he may have been under the impression that his parents would get him out of trouble or that he wasn’t going to actually be arrested. I am sure he did not realize that having a fake ID was a felony.</p>
<p>Anyway, even if he was a spoiled kid, I still wasn’t comfortable taking him to jail. Honestly, I was concerned with him being too cute (blond hair, blue eyes and baby face) if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>Baelor, you’re really stretching things to fit your mentality. Your excuse doesn’t work if there are other good jobs available to them. But I’m not interested in appealing to your “logic” any more.</p>
<p>Lets get back to the topic of fake IDs. Is it a bad idea? I think we’ve agreed it is. Is it ever acceptable? Possibly, but it would have to be quite a stretch to accept the risks.</p>
<p>We’ve heard from people giving accounts on both sides of the story: Some people’s children use friends IDs to attend rather important events in their career - it’s not their “fault” that they are exceptional and successful at an unusually young age. On the other hand, there are people who were caught and now have it on their permanent record.</p>
<p>I’m also curious about what Bay mentioned: If you are caught, how can you be really charged anyway? Assuming your fake ID doesn’t have your name on it, what are they gonna do? Tackle you to the ground and prevent you from leaving the area?</p>
<p>NotBlue, let me rephrase. One could claim that following the law would be feeding into a system that promotes discrimination, i.e., by following that law, you are supporting discrimination (both as employer and candidate). You are correct that there are other jobs, but there are certainly those who believe that submitting to restrictions of any sort based on race would be immoral, hence the law produces immoral consequences – racial discrimination.</p>
<p>And I’ve heard of fake IDs being confiscated on the spot and the police called. It’s not that hard. The person could run for it, but their picture is probably on the ID.</p>
Yeah that’s basically what I’ve said. The point is just that if you follow all laws blindly, you aren’t guaranteed that you won’t find yourself doing or supporting some things that ultimately lead to an immoral outcome. In other words, someone who absolutely without exception submits to all laws is unlikely to do so without some compromise in an otherwise (potentially) pure morality.</p>
<p>In the US currently though, there aren’t too many serious laws like these remaining, but less severe ones exist - usually in the form of less severely limited rights or discrimination.</p>
<p>Anyway back to the topic, it occurs to me that this applies more to alcohol age rather than false IDs - you can justify an 18 year old having a glass of wine pretty easily on moral grounds, it’s nearly impossible to justify falsified government documents for what is in 99% of cases, petty desires.</p>
<p>
That’s true. I suppose you could use the ID of a friend as some here mentioned they’ve done, and if the police contact the friend they could claim that you stole it. So long as they haven’t identified you, they can’t do anything. Still, pretty risky. If they really wanted to get you, they could possibly review security cameras and identify you that way.</p>
<p>So the reason to have a fake ID is so one can break the law? Sounds like being doubly stupid to me. If ya get caught, you can be charged with two offenses - possessing a fake ID and what ever you were using the fake ID for. Good way to put your life in the toilet.</p>
<p>We’ve heard one anecdote here of one person who was arrested and presumably charged with a felony for this. Was he convicted of a felony? I very much doubt it, assuming he could hire a lawyer.</p>
<p>I think it’s probably true that the risk of being caught with a fake ID is different in different places. Anybody who’s going to do this should make sure that you know what the risk really is.</p>
<p>If he was convicted of a felony, proud-mom would probably know about it. Arresting officers are called as witnesses in criminal trials. If she doesn’t know the outcome, then it is likely the charges were dropped or reduced.</p>
<p>In New Jersey, as I have said before, the shore towns use this as a money-maker for the local economy. They bust a young person for fake ID and it is either handled at the local level or bumped up to the county court (a higher court). Either way, you hire a local lawyer who is not at the pinnacle of the profession. You pay about $5000 (can be less if the case remains at the local level). You get deferred adjudication (or whatever it is called in NJ- maybe probation) and you do community service- about 30 hours or so I believe. You also pay a fine. At the end, the charges are dismissed. You then get your record expunged. You can do this yourself or pay another $800 or so to the lawyer to do it. It will not show up on a regular background check. The FBI or that level check can discover it. It is not a deal-breaker for the bar. This is the consequence IF you are not only caught but also if the police are called and a decision is made to prosecute. The usual consequence is simply that you don’t get into the bar and the ID is confiscated.</p>
No! That’s like saying “So the reason to go 5 MPH over the speed limit is so one can break the law?”</p>
<p>You don’t speed with the purpose of breaking the law, you speed with the purpose of going faster.</p>
<p>You don’t have a fake ID with the purpose of breaking the law, you have a fake ID with the purpose of getting into clubs, etc.</p>
<p>Whether these are stupid things to do or not is another matter, I just wanted to make this clear (you already know I don’t like people having fake IDs).</p>
<p>Unless, of course, your ultimate good is obedience to the laws, and therefore the outcome is irrelevant if the law is being followed.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you still haven’t explained why your incredibly offensive, not to mention idiotic, claim that anyone who would follow a law prohibiting a morally neutral actions is “in denial.” I clearly explained how this might not be the case, given rational positions held by many. You then completely ignored that explanation in favor of bringing up tangents and accusing me of mentioning them, which I never did.</p>
I did not mean it the way you’re reading it. I would edit my wording if I could, but the posts are too old. What more can I say…</p>
<p>
No. You’re not thinking this through.</p>
<p>If I cross the street and jaywalk, I’m not jaywalking to break the law. I’m jaywalking to cross the street. It would be breaking the law but that certainly wouldn’t be the reason.</p>
<p>If I get a fake ID (which I HIGHLY doubt), it wouldn’t be to break the law, but to get into a club or something like that. It would be breaking the law but that certainly wouldn’t be the reason.</p>
<p>
Of course, if you redefine what it means to be “good”, then it can mean anything you want it to mean.</p>
<p>If your ultimate good is obedience to the laws, and the laws tell you to torture someone, then to not torture someone would be bad by your definition of ultimate good. I call that a flawed morality. Simple as that.</p>
<p>I’m not saying people don’t exist whose “ultimate good” is obedience to the laws, they probably do exist. I’m saying these people’s morality (follow ALL laws completely blindly) is flawed, because this morality does not inherently prohibit things we as rational people can define as bad like: murder, rape, torture, etc. - because in theory they would do these things if their law told them to. If they would refuse, then they’re ultimate good isn’t obedience to laws after all.</p>
<p>Well, the purpose of the fake ID is to get a beer. And to express contempt for a legal system that makes it illegal for a 20 year old to get a drink.</p>
<p>There’s no “redefinition” of good – it exists (as a concept) solely based on our definitions of it. Was there some authority that forever defined “good” as the same for everyone? An absolutist would argue, yes – but even absolutists disagree. One cannot redefine good, only define it. What you call flawed morality I call flawed but consistent morality. Much like I would call your conception of morality flawed but presumably consistent.</p>
<p>And, in answer to your last paragraph, “we as rational people” disagree on many things – acceptability of cheating on one’s spouse, the moral implications of human sacrifice, euthanasia, abortion, etc. To say that there are universal “goods” such as murder and the like is to espouse a form of natural law, which many (including myself) do, but some do not, again rationally and with reason. The fact that you do not consider obedience to laws as a good does not mean that others do not, or that it is not (assuming the perspective of an absolutist). It’s a matter of priority – rape is bad, but is raping someone to save the rest of the species bad? There are people on both sides, as they prioritize and identify “goods” differently. I’m sorry, but simply asserting that “rational” people do certain things or believe certain things is intellectual complacency and denial at (in my opinion) its worst.</p>
<p>It is very easy to drink beer or other alcohol without having a fake ID. It is NOT easy to go to bars and clubs without one. I think a lot depends on where you go to college. My daughter never felt the need to have a fake ID at Rice. Most of the parties and drinking were on campus and not at bars or clubs- at least until you were legitimately 21. At other schools (Penn, for instance) a lot of the social life after freshman year is off-campus and at clubs. I don’t know of any Penn students who got into any legal trouble around Penn or in Philadelphia for having a fake ID.</p>