<p>Edit: NVM i didnt read the post correctly</p>
<p>But that essentially makes 21 the de facto national drinking age</p>
<p>If you're going to go by Leviathan, which you claim is the modern, applicable version, he does not recognize a right to rebellion which would contradict what you earlier stated. The point is that if you dig deep enough you will find statements among each texts that contradict one another. So what do you do, do you throw the whole thing out? NO. You decide as an individual what you believe is right and what applies most to your life. That's what I've done. You apparently disagree with that.</p>
<p>I disagree that the basic principles laid out in Crito aren't relevant in 2006. No matters whether we're speaking of laws in Athens, Greece in 399 BC or in Virginia, U.S. in 2006. I believe that the basic principles are timeless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hate to be "The Man" here, but first years are expressly forbidden from operating motor vehicles in Charlottesville or Albemarle County. The potential consequences from this include a fine or expulsion from the University. (found in the University record)</p>
<p>I happen to be one of those "squares" who takes the Honor Code very seriously as an extension of my personal values. Just because no one sees you break a rule does not mean that you DIDN'T break it. Is it okay to break rules just because you don't get caught? I would say it certainly isn't.</p>
<p>I know a lot of students at UVA think the Honor Code is a joke. They drink underage, do drugs, cheat on tests, and lie constantly. I am not one of those people. Other members of this board have told you that it's fine to operate a vehicle as a first year, and I'm sure most students will. They are the kinds of people who follow the convenient policies. I would suggest you ask yourself if you're the kind of person to break this rule, or that rule, can you consider yourself an honest person? Do you care?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pizzelle:</p>
<p>You posts become ever more incredible. My parents, who graduated from UVA, simply refuse to believe that you are, in fact, a student there. If you were really a UVA student, you would understand the distinction between a violation of the Honor Code and a violation of the Standards of Conduct. There are two separate committees to deal with the two separate types of violations:</p>
<p>“It is important to note that the Judiciary Committee and the Honor Committee are separate entities. The Honor Committee deals strictly with cases of lying, cheating and stealing and has the single sanction of expulsion. The Judiciary Committee hears all cases involving violations of the Standards of Conduct and can impose any sanction ranging from oral admonition to expulsion.”</p>
<p>Automobile violations (or drinking violations for that matter) simply do not fall under the Honor Code. The 12 Standards of Conduct that the Judiciary Committee may deal with are listed here:</p>
<p>The only way that an automobile violation (independent of other Standards of Conduct) can come before the Judiciary Committee is if it falls under item number 6 (Violation of University policies or regulations referenced in The Record). As you stated, The Record does address policies regarding automobiles; however, after taking the time to look up the policy, you chose not to quote the policy, but instead, to deliberately distort and misrepresent (i.e., LIE about) the policy.</p>
<p><a href="No%20first%20year%20undergraduate%20student%20in%20their%20first%20semester%20is%20permitted%20to%20operate%20a%20motor%20vehicle%20in%20Charlottesville%20or%20Albemarle%20County%20at%20any%20time%20during%20that%20semester.%20Requests%20for%20exceptions%20due%20to%20physical%20disability%20are%20made%20to%20the%20Department%20of%20Student%20Health.%20All%20other%20requests%20for%20exceptions%20should%20be%20made%20to%20the%20Dean%20of%20Students.">quote</a> </p>
<p>. . . .</p>
<p>“Offenses and Penalties Listed below are the violations of these regulations with the fine indicated. Fines must be paid to the Department of Parking and Transportation in person or by mail. </p>
<ol>
<li>For operation of a motor vehicle by a student not entitled to motor vehicle privileges, the penalty is $100 and/or possible suspension from the University.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>You state that:</p>
<p>
[quote]
first years are expressly forbidden from operating motor vehicles in Charlottesville or Albemarle County.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The policy states:</p>
<p>
[quote]
No first year undergraduate student in their first semester is permitted to operate a motor vehicle in Charlottesville or Albemarle County at any time during that semester.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You state that:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The potential consequences from this include a fine or expulsion from the University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The policy states:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For operation of a motor vehicle by a student not entitled to motor vehicle privileges, the penalty is $100 and/or possible suspension from the University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"First year" is not the same thing as "first semester."</p>
<p>As any high school student knows “suspension” is not the same thing as “expulsion.”</p>
<p>You also strongly infer that such a violation falls under the Honor Code when it clearly does not.</p>
<p>If you are indeed a student at UVA, perhaps someone should file a complaint against you to the Honor Committee for deliberately choosing to LIE to new students about University policies. Lying is a clear violation of the Honor Code.</p>
<p>Now let’s consider the University’s policy regarding automobiles for first semester, first year students.</p>
<p>In each situation where the University asserts jurisdiction beyond the boarders of the University in its Standards of Conduct (i.e., Standards # 1 and #2), it is in relation to illegal and/or legally wrongful conduct. In the case of operating an automobile, if one is properly licensed by a state and operating a vehicle in accordance with that license, he/she is not doing anything wrong and the University cannot legally interfere with that process. In other words, the privilege to drive in any county of Virginia is a matter of state law and the University has no legal right to interfere with that privilege.</p>
<p>The University can certainly restrict parking on its “grounds,” but the University has no legal right to prevent anyone from owing a vehicle and keeping that vehicle off “grounds.” In fact, the Record does not even attempt to restrict students from having an automobile in Charlottesville. </p>
<p>Since police departments cannot issue tickets to students who are driving legally, there is no real way for the University to enforce its crazy policy for first year, first semester students. I bet you cannot find one instance where the University even attempted to discipline a first semester, first year student for legally driving in Albemarle County. I’m sure the University would not want to expose itself to the certain lawsuits that would follow such an action by the University.</p>
<p>I am actually a new student here, so no...I'm not fully hip to the specifics of campus policy. And the expulsion vs. suspension error was a total accident. My point wasn't the severity of the punishment but that punishments actually exist. It wasn't a lie, and you're being ridiculous and offensive for no good reason just because you disagree with me. I haven't even signed the Honor Code yet.</p>
<p>And the rest of your comment is just more of the same that I've already been debating, which is a belief many people clearly disagree with. Whether or not it's in the Honor Code, it's not allowed on campus. Whether or not it's not allowed on campus, (drinking underage) is not allowed in the state. It is my personal system of beliefs that if you CHOOSE to attend UVA then you are OBLIGATED to abide by UVA's rules. It's UVA's house, and by agreeing to attend the University you are agreeing to follow their rules. This extends to VA laws and federal laws.</p>
<p>Regarding VA vs. UVA laws, yes...clearly it's also not against state law to lie to your professor, but it's against "UVA law." Can you LEGALLY do it? Of course. Does your presence at UVA imply an agreement with the University that you will NOT do it? Yes. Is doing so wrong in my opinion? Hell yes.</p>
<p>The National Minimum Drinking Age Act made 21 the minimum legal age for purchase and possesion of alcoholic beverages. States were pressured into making 21 the legal age for consumption, too, by the Federal Aid Highway Act. So the legal age of 21 for consumption of alcoholic beverages is really a result of arm-twisting by the Reagan administration. However, restrictions vary by state. Some, like Wisconsin, have no minimum age for consumption as long as the beverage is served by a legal guardian. BTW, it should be noted that the United States has among the most stringent drinking laws in the world.</p>
<p>First of all, I already said that the Founders ultimately rejected the Hobbesian view of the social contract. What I am saying there is that the modern social contract theory came about with Hobbes. The social contract theory was widely disregarded after Plato. I believe Aristotle did not touch it all and it was not until Hobbes did it come back into the picture. That's why whenever we talk about social contract today, especially when we talk about the United States, we start with Hobbes, not Plato.</p>
<p>Look, how are you going to dispute the basis of the social contract that the Founders used? If we are talking about the social contract that is used to form U.S. society, then that would be based on what the Founders defined a social contract to be, and that is largely similar to John Locke's definition. All this 'timeless principles' and whatever is totally irrelevant to the fundamental principles that created the United States. I'm not saying Crito isn't relevant in 2006 to an individual. I'm saying Crito isn't relevant in the formation of the social contract on July 4th, 1776 when Thomas Jefferson finished the Declaration of Independence explaining why the colonies have the right to secede from Great Britain. Therefore, when you make references to the idea that drinking underage is violating the social contract because it breaks the law, that is not true because that was not the social contract that was formed in the independence of the United States.</p>
<p>I seriously don't get why you're still debating this. Maybe I personally LIKE Socrates' version of the social contract theory and not Hobbes? (and I refuse to say it was Plato) The point of my referencing that theory in the first place was not to present my position as irrefutable by hiding behind the words of others, it was because to me it seemed that the others on the board were completely ignorant to the idea PERIOD. When I made my initial statements, the reactions (maybe from you, I don't know) were of total shock and dismay, like my statements were totally new and alien to them. I referenced the theory because, yes, it contains much deviation, but if you can understand that basic concept then you can understand where I'm coming from.</p>
<p>Are you trying to say that the social contract theory goes against the principles of free will of the Declaration of Independence? I would say it still can be applied. Personally, I think it can get sticky sometimes, especially when some of the U.S.'s most significant societal shifts have been caused by refusing to obey unjust laws. Of course, I don't find a ban on underage drinking or parking as a freshman to be unjust or offenses on your personal liberties, but I was soft still. I even said earlier: "As is usually the case with policy and legal shifts in the United States, others are free to blatantly and openly break the law as an act of defiance if they feel their rights are being violated in some way. If someone else wants to take the risks and accept the consequences, that's their human right. I take no issue with the law and therefore find myself morally obligated to abide by it."</p>
<p>It is undisputable that UVA does not want you doing X, Y, and Z. Thomas Jefferson, and the founders, would want you to follow X, Y, and Z rules if they were established by the University, and if you took issue with them then he would have wanted you to try and change them. The founders would not want you to break the rules, laugh about it, and if you find them absurd or wrong...do nothing about it. From what I understand the University was incredibly strict initially, with students told when they could eat, or sleep, or bathe. I highly doubt they would approve of you breaking the rules for fun or convenience.</p>
<p>but they do approve of us breaking rules for fun or convience. lol being as you havn't attended the school yet, i think you're off base on many, if not all, of your assumptions about the school. despite what you may think you know about uva, it operates much like every other school in the country - perhaps wth more strict rules regarding academic dishonesty.</p>
<p>So you're backing off of your "Honor Code" argument?</p>
<p>BTW, the University was strict initially due to extreme rowdiness on the part of the student body. A professor was even shot - must have been one hell*uva* party scene...</p>
<p>jags861 - First of all, if that is true, I highly doubt THAT is in the spirit of what the founders would have wanted. I really don't think they'd find public streaking to be humorous.</p>
<p>Secondly, I don't live my life by the standards of others. I don't just follow rules when I think others want me to follow them, I follow them because it is MY principles which define me.</p>
<p>cavalier302 - Am I backing off of the Honor Code thing? It really isn't the sole basis of my principles. I wasn't born under UVA's Honor Code, I've never lived under UVA's Honor Code, it will really be just an extension of my daily life. Subtract it from all of my arguments and they still stand. The essence of my beliefs is not a written contract but an unspoken contract. That was just something I thought added some flame to the fire.</p>
<p>As long as I'm living in the U.S., retain my rights as a citizen, and am attending a University by my own choice...my beliefs apply. Honor Code or no.</p>
<p>The problem with what you personally like is that it isn't a social contract theory. Everyone, in the end, follows the same set of laws. If different people had different applications of it, then there would be no 'contract' at all. Instead, there is only one contract, and it definitely is not based on the principles of Crito (which Plato later criticizes in The Republic), but on those of what the Founders believed to be correct. In philosophical terms, this is closest to John Locke.</p>
<p>Just because you see it one way does not change the fact that underage drinking laws is not in the general interest. When you say that breaking the law is immoral in this context because it violates the social contract, the real statement there is that you think breaking the law is immoral because they are the law passed by the 50 states, regardless of the social contract (and despite the social contract serving the interests of the general public).</p>
<p>How are you still arguing this? YES IT IS.</p>
<p>Socrates defined what HE BELIEVED was a social contract. Maybe I LIKE HIS VERSION OF IT. Truthfully, it hardly differs from the overall theme, only in specifics. YES there are the same set of laws, and YES people have to have the same applications, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. It is exactly what Socrates lays out word for word in Crito. What Locke says is irrelevant to Plato's writings.</p>
<p>Socrates would say that your behavior, and the behavior of others, is lazy and evil. You sit here and say "that's a stupid law" and break it over and over and over again, but do nothing to change it. You are breaking your contract. Your contract, as outline by Socrates, obligates you to try and change it if you don't think it serves the general good. Not just continue to break it in silence. Socrates makes allowances for unjust laws, for stupid laws, for laws which people dislike. This is stated very simply in Plato's writings. Yes, that's exactly right. I think that breaking the law is immoral because it is the law...and that living here alone is the social contract. The point is that the U.S. offers you many good things as a citizen. It offers you the right to have a job, to pursue education, to have luxuries, to vote, to enter politics, or to leave. In turn, you are obligated to follow its laws, because if people pick and choose which laws they wish to follow...lawlessness would ensue. Socrates considered this the destruction of society. It's not always easy. Sometimes you make sacrifices, resist temptation, or face disappointment. That's how you return to your society what your society has given you. This makes your individual feelings on specific laws irrelevant, unless you choose to try and change them. The laws ARE intended to serve the general public, and it is the general public's obligation to either change the laws, abide by them, or leave.</p>
<p>This is how I live my life, and I extend my principles to UVA.</p>
<p>Dude you need a beer.</p>
<p>I'm over 21. I can drink freely, but I certainly don't drink beer.</p>
<p>Now I don't know whether or not you talk about founders as founder of UVa or founders of the USA - but fortunately they're hte same in this case.</p>
<p>but then again</p>
<p>If by founders you mean the white, upperclass, slave owners who said all men are crerated equal (of course except women, blacks, and jews) and broke away from britain because they were being taxed too much, then yes - i think they would find public streaking hilarious. and drinking. a lot of drinking. they would find that hilarious, too.</p>
<p>So if the University was founded by white, upperclass slave owners who were racist...then why in the name of God should I care what any of them thought? Or Thomas Jefferson himself, for that matter?</p>
<p>Because what they did was nothing short of incredible. Disregarding their vast political and intellectual accomplishment because of their morals shortfalls is petty, immature and shallow. HTH.</p>
<p>My point was that the information was irrelevant in trying to sway someone's perspective on this issue, if that was his goal...because the statement seemed like a non sequitur. I was asking a rhetorical question.</p>
<p>I don't believe that their slave ownership should be viewed the way we might view it today, due to the fact that it was once a cultural norm and certainly is not now, so your attempts at insults are misdirected. Hungover, maybe?</p>
<p>I made no attempt to insult you. I was stating fact, but I didn't realize that you were making a rhetorical statement (as the internet doesn't always convey that kind of subtlety). No, I'm not hung over. Do you even know what a hangover is?</p>
<p>Sure I know what a hangover is. I'm 22. I am actually allowed to drink, and do so frequently, in public with my friends without concern for legality. I don't have to do it in some guy's basement or sneak around with a fake ID.</p>