<p>I reject the idea that basing morality of legality is problematic on the basis the NotBlue mentioned. There could be an argument against its rationality, but the argument being forwarded to me is unfounded and utterly unconvincing.</p>
<p>Baelor: “Rationality > Convincing”. You obviously don’t (/want to) understand. So I give up. Go away. <em>Waits for more ■■■■■■■■, blaming my argument of being “rational but not convincing enough to him” to try to get me to respond again</em></p>
<p>
Also, this “tool” (fake ID) is illegal in of itself! That makes it even worse.</p>
<p>
And overall I agree with you on this point, so I have no real argument against what you say.</p>
<p>
Good point. An embezzler takes a path that harms others to reach his goal of getting rich, so you can’t just evaluate the goal.</p>
<p>The distinction I’m trying to make is that someone with a false ID can have perfectly harmless goals (provided they’re responsible adults), since I got the impression you thought that breaking the law was their actual goal, when in fact it was just the path to their goal.</p>
<p>In the case of a false ID, I think that this path is potentially harmful if you end up making someone liable for being involved in your fraud, but not always since it depends on the situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rationality is by definition convincing. Your refusal to see alternate points of view that are completely legitimate but operate on different assumptions – for example, the moral obligation of the legal system as binding – clouds your ability to speak rationally, as evidenced by your posts in this thread.</p>
<p>Baelor: I must admit, you’re quite skilled at ■■■■■■■■ / arguing for the sake of arguing or making someone look bad. But one thing you seem to struggle quite a bit with is using a dictionary / researching, as evidenced by your post in this thread and others.</p>
<p>
On the bright side, you make me laugh :)</p>
<p>P.S. Also you might want to learn what real (formal) logic is, it’s quite informing.</p>
<p>Hint: That statement is not biconditional, by the actual definitions. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to derive from that and your previous post the pointlessness of such an argument :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More drivel without justification. At least you are consistent.</p>
<p>For an explanation that caters to someone such as yourself, consider this a fleshed-out version of my statement.</p>
<p>Rationality: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically</p>
<p>Convincing: capable of causing someone to believe that something is true or real</p>
<p>If you wish to deny that logic, sense, and the faculty of reason lead to conclusions that are “true” or “real” given particular premises, then be my guest. Otherwise, the faculty of reason, by virtue of being said faculty, is convincing, even if one does not agree with the conclusion. That is, the conclusion can be reasoned from the premises, but one can disagree with said premises. In other words, rationality is convincing to logical, reasonable persons. If you would like to expand the sample set to every person who has ever lived, then we can do so – and I would retract my statement. In the meantime, if you would forward the claim that rationality is not convincing, then I would make the counter that nothing can be convincing. Rationality is a subset of convincing, if one wanted to think of it that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logic does not inform. Logic is a framework by which one can inform.</p>
<p>And as someone who has studied formal logic, you are preaching to the choir – I am well aware of its merits. Perhaps you should refrain from making assumptions that are not only asinine but also incorrect.</p>
<p>
Yeah. I knew that.</p>
<p>My hint about the statement not being biconditional obviously went right past you… kind of proving my point here :)</p>
<p>
Perhaps you should study formal logic beyond a few wikipedia definitions, or tell me what horrible logic book you’ve been reading since you didn’t understand my “hint” above.</p>
<p>I could explain it, but I’ve wasted far too much space on this thread already to tediously explain logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually addressed it very specifically in my last post. I’ll leave it as an exercise to you and the reader to find where I responded in the affirmative to your claim.</p>
<p>The “pointlessness” of such an argument is a nonexistent concept; given the definitions and posited positions, the statement does not provide a tautological or contradictory result.</p>
<p>If you are insinuating that I somehow disagreed with the statement, “convincing > rationality,” then you would obviously be incorrect. My response was twofold: One, that I would never claim that your position is rational (as you said that I would), as it is not; two, that in this case, rationality appears to be the only way to formulate a convincing position.</p>
<p>No, you totally missed it. Your analysis of the statement itself is actually very good, but you fail to recognize the implication of it not being biconditional. I can explain on PM, but not here.</p>
<p>This is ridiculous. You’ve basically destroyed this thread with clutter, and I hate to admit I was drawn into it and became a part of it. I will now respond to any further comments you have by PM only.</p>
<p>Wow, okay guys (or gals) I’m taking a modified line from Jerry McGuire, “You had me at 5 pages ago.” Life is to short, get a hobby that doesn’t include debate or cc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime.</p>
<p>Rationality is not convincing someone of anything. One does not equal the other.</p>
<p>NotBlue, I can explain why you are wrong via PM, but I assure you that I am perfectly aware of what you think I missed and the implications, and again I tell you that my responses have been consistent with the lack of biconditional formulation. Take it to PM.</p>
<p>From a student’s perspective: I think its hilarious that some of the more uptight parents (or “concerned parents” if you want me to be politically correct) think that by disapproving of fake ids, they will somehow prevent their children from actually getting one. Someone mentioned that it is very poor parenting for a parent to approve or be indifferent to a student’s fake id. Well, here’s a shocker, if you are the type of parent who would disapprove of the id, the kid probably just won’t tell you about it. The parents who are open minded and realistic probably have a close enough relationship to their kids for their kids to be comfortable telling them about their daily lives.</p>
<p>The craziest kids that I know, the ones who engage in the riskiest behavior, are the ones whose parents restricted them the most during high school. What I think is bad parenting is when a parent is so afraid of ever little thing that they fail to give good advice. Telling a college student to never drink, never get a fake id, or never have sex until marriage is like telling a starving man not to eat the steak in front of him. Many of these things are going to happen, whether you like it or not. And since some of you sound very uptight, most of these things will happen behind your back. (And, for those of you who are thinking, “no, not my daughter or son,” you are deceiving yourselves. Some of my craziest friends have parents who think they are saints.) </p>
<p>What I think is good parenting is to accept that some things are inevitable. You may not like the idea that your kid will be drinking or using fake ids, but you can tell them how to be as safe as possible about what they are doing. You metabolize one drink an hour, s don’t drink over two drinks in a hour because you probably won’t feel well the next day; use protection (for the sex, obviously), etc. </p>
<p>My parents grew up in an era when alcohol was legal for 18 year olds, and they both drank. They were my age once too, and thankfully, they haven’t forgotten it. When they asked me if I drink or have a fake id, I said yes, because I knew they trusted me. I don’t over drink like some of my crazy friends with strict parents because I know my parents trust me, and if something ever happened to me (like I got alcohol poisoning for over drinking), it could potentially jeopardize that trust. </p>
<p>So the whole point of this rant, which I assure you is coming from a responsible Berkeley student with a 3.7 and not a crazy alcoholic sorority girl, as some of the stricter parents are probably imagining, is to defend the parents who are accused of bad parenting because they accept the fact that their children have fake ids. It is likely that these parents have been much greater parents than the strict ones because their children trust them and can come to them in times of need. </p>
<p>I had a friend who almost died while drunk driving a car because she was too scared to call her parents to pick her up. The prospect of getting punished for drinking was, to her, worth risking her life for. Things like this happen all the time. I, on the other hand, would not hesitate to call my parents in a time of need,because I know they are realistic: they accept that I drink, but absolutely never would they tolerate drunk driving. Fortunately, I have never had to call my parents in a time of need, maybe because my parents have educated me, rather than merely preaching abstinance of alcohol. </p>
<p>So, to the understanding parents out there: good job, from a daughter who was fortunate enough to have the same.</p>
<p>My daughter is now 21, so it is a moot point, but sometimes I wish she had gotten a fake ID.</p>
<p>She never got one because she is not inclined to break the law and because she doesn’t drink anyway.</p>
<p>But on more than one occasion, not having a fake ID caused her problems at summer internships. She was unable to join in business-related social activities that her older colleagues (or those interns with fake IDs) could attend, simply because they were held in bars.</p>
<p>I mention this because I know that some of the parents reading this thread work for companies that hire interns. It might not be a bad idea if we reminded our colleagues that holding business-related social activities in venues that require an ID showing that you’re at least 21 creates a very awkward situation for interns who are not yet 21.</p>
<p>We are pretty careful about taking our interns to bars or serving them alcohol at company parties. It is too much liability for us, even if they are over 21.</p>
<p>
I agree with this, except that I think the word inevitable is perhaps a bit too strong. I do think that it could be replaced with “possible, no matter how unlikely you may believe it to be.” Personally, I find no contradition in telling my kids that I don’t think they should do certain things, but going on to tell them how to protect themselves if they choose to do them.</p>
<p>I’m an understanding parent with a very close relationship with my kids. My understanding is that my kids will obey the law. (H and I also drank when we were 18–it was legal). I’m 100% certain that my kids don’t have fake IDs and don’t hang out with drinkers. It is not my “disapproval” of fake IDs that prevents my kids from getting them–it is a whole lifetime of being raised with the kind of values that are good for their health and good for society.</p>
<p>It makes no difference to me if another parent’s kid thinks I’m uptight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call that uptight. I would call it condescending. Good for you and your kids! IT doesn’t always work out so perfectly, though.</p>
<p>
I wouldn’t say you’re uptight. In fact, I’d say you are a gambler.</p>
<p>^
Or an extreme optimist.</p>
<p>If your college kids “don’t hang out with drinkers,” they must live a very sheltered existence and have a very limited set of friends. Do you think they quiz every student they meet to determine whether each one is a “drinker” before spending time with them?</p>