Europe has a much lower drinking age then your America, and also - a much, much lower incidence of binge drinking, drunken driving or alcohol poisoning.
When a law indirectly teaches irresponsibility, it is amoral and worth breaking.
Frankly, I do not believe you break this one for any reason but your own pleasure. The fact that there are unjust laws or silly ones does not make it any less admirable in Laurie to have a general respect for the law and discomfort with breaking it for frivolous reasons, and I have less respect for those of you who are trying to make her feel guilty for that.
And, similarly, to not do or say things simply because it's what everyone else is saying. I think Laurie has rather proved that she has thought for herself on the matter of following laws and knows her own opinion, regardless of anyone else's take on the matter.
Then she should refrain from dictating to others how they should consider laws and when and how to break them or follow them.
I had no particular problem with her choice in following the law until she informed all of us, and I do quote from her comment above "Because it's the law. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow. "
Laurie's choice is as valid as mine or Mark's or Rahne's or anyone else's. Her attempts to preach her brand of morality and ethics are only going to be met with argument.
It is not, after all, if any of us have forced her to drink illegally or break any laws. We simply point out the flaws in her reasoning.
Well, if you objected to her informing you all of her choice, perhaps you should not have asked her "why should he or she respect such a restrictive law?" as it was basically guarunteed to elicit an opinion of some sort. It is a tad harsh to become upset with her for answering your own question.
I am quite certain you'll be speaking with the Professor about the telepathy that you've developed, quite uncontrollably, to be able to read my mine and judge the thoughts behind what I say here, yes?
Until you have a grasp on this new developed power, please stay out of my head. You may find that it undoes your simplistic black and white view of morality, legality and ethics.
Since when is encouraging discourse by having a differing opinion "making her feel guilty"?
A general respect for the law is indeed a healthy thing. But "frivolous" is a very slippery slope. What YOU perceive as frivolous is not automatically what others might consider frivolous. Marius was the first to raise the valid point that by his own consideration, due to being legal to drink in his home country, he finds America's drinking laws frivolous. Why is Laurie's opinion automatically more admirable than Marius' in your opinion?
I dunno, maybe I'm not reading it wrong but I don't think anyone's trying to make her feel guilty. Differing thoughts on it, yeah, and seems like it's something everyone feels strongly about.
I've seen guilt trips and this really isn't one.
But here's an interesting question. Some churches give out wine for communion to folks under age. Technically, that's breaking the law though I know it's overlooked a lot (and not done in my church) since, you know, no one's getting drunk off the communion wine.
Not quite what you were saying, with the communion wine, but... uh. There's kind of a tradition among less angelic choirboys to break into the cupboard at least once in their stint.
But your mother likes me! I ate three plates of food! (I thought she was going to adopt me, seriously.) I bet I could get her to cough those up. La la la...
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 02:07 pm (UTC)When a law indirectly teaches irresponsibility, it is amoral and worth breaking.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:38 pm (UTC)I had no particular problem with her choice in following the law until she informed all of us, and I do quote from her comment above "Because it's the law. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow. "
Laurie's choice is as valid as mine or Mark's or Rahne's or anyone else's. Her attempts to preach her brand of morality and ethics are only going to be met with argument.
It is not, after all, if any of us have forced her to drink illegally or break any laws. We simply point out the flaws in her reasoning.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 09:42 pm (UTC)Maybe this is where we agree to disagree on certain aspects of society? :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:40 pm (UTC)Until you have a grasp on this new developed power, please stay out of my head. You may find that it undoes your simplistic black and white view of morality, legality and ethics.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:59 pm (UTC)A general respect for the law is indeed a healthy thing. But "frivolous" is a very slippery slope. What YOU perceive as frivolous is not automatically what others might consider frivolous. Marius was the first to raise the valid point that by his own consideration, due to being legal to drink in his home country, he finds America's drinking laws frivolous. Why is Laurie's opinion automatically more admirable than Marius' in your opinion?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:04 pm (UTC)Are you still drunk, Ramsey?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:05 pm (UTC)I've seen guilt trips and this really isn't one.
But here's an interesting question. Some churches give out wine for communion to folks under age. Technically, that's breaking the law though I know it's overlooked a lot (and not done in my church) since, you know, no one's getting drunk off the communion wine.
Hopefully.
So how does something like that fit in?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:39 pm (UTC)I know. I was one.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:47 pm (UTC)You were a choirboy? Aww.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:53 pm (UTC)Clarice, don't you dare.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:54 pm (UTC)...I need the Pixie Express!
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 05:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 06:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 06:10 pm (UTC)