Teens, drug use, and the limitation of privacy.

[SlappyMcGee]

But nobody suggested any of your examples.

Ampersand suggested every possible example when he said that parents or legal guardians should be given a carte blanche in regards to judging where the boundaries of a child's privacy lie. Carte blanche: complete freedom or authority to act.

I don't think Ampersand meant that all laws are null in this regard, merely that things that are not covered by other laws should not be restricted here.

[Ampersand]

But nobody suggested any of your examples.

Ampersand suggested every possible example when he said that parents or legal guardians should be given a carte blanche in regards to judging where the boundaries of a child's privacy lie. Carte blanche: complete freedom or authority to act.

No, no. Read the *whole* post. If I'm against hitting a kid, perhaps you can glean that I'm a semi-reasonable dude, yeah? And what you're saying is that parents shouldn't be trusted to judge where the boundaries of a child's privacy lie? That's what parenting is, bro. Yes, there are some morons out there who can't discern what a decent definition of a boundary is, but parenting is entirely, one-hundred-and-ten-percent judging and clarifying those boundaries. There's not any debate there whatsoever. Stupid people abuse that, and those stupid people shouldn't be parents. But do they and should they still have the power of guardianship over a child until they violate the laws that have been put in place to prevent such abuses? Duh.

Strip searching a child isn't a violation of privacy, it's a violation of that child's rights. Rummaging through a kids' drawers is violating their privacy, but in any instance where my child has brought the shroud of suspicion up to a reasonable parent enough that a good, honest talk won't do the job, then I absolutely fail to see a problem.

Your "examples" are that of abuse, and I absolutely refuse to submit that you could ever think that there is no difference between a simple "violation of privacy" and "abuse."

[Atilla]

But nobody suggested any of your examples. Do you honestly believe that parents who read internet logs and search their kids rooms are going to strip search their children? Or hate on the black folk? Racism is against the law, for the most part, these days, so legally speaking, the latter example would not be without legal precedent. As far as strip-searching their children, I think that that is also against the law. And having videos of a minor getting nude? Huh. Against the law. Legally speaking, we've already covered all of the bases you've brought up, and it isn't up to you to opine that these people are bad parents, because the only things you've described that make them "bad parents" are breaches of the law, and therefore a legal matter. As far as searching a room of the house that they own and let their son stay in? I probably wouldn't do it, but I can certainly understand parents that want to monitor the things being brought into their house. I wouldn't think of them as bad parents; maybe just overly careful ones.

No, no, you're missing the point. You said that Apersand's point was that parents legally have carte blanche (which, as rennaT rightly points out, implies that you can do whatever the hell you want). I was demonstrating that they do not have carte blanche because - as you have both acknowledged - some of these acts are quite clearly illegal. The same goes with judging people for their attitude to the civil liberties of children - society as a whole would judge the kind of racism I described as terrible parenting, which one reason that it's (possibly) illegal. I'm not suggesting that searching someone's room immediately leads to being an abusive, racist bastard - merely that it's clear that people are judged on their parenting and that there are already limits on how much you can violate your kid's privacy. It is therefore incorrect to state that parents have legal carte blanche or that nobody's parenting can be judged as poor.

If you want a legal example, the courts are totally down with alcoholism, but I think we can all agree that constant drunkeness isn't the best parenting strategy out there.

Also, why aren't I allowed to judge people who engage in illegal acts as bad parents? Surely the fact that it's illegal as well as harmful makes it even worse parenting? Am I allowed to call murderers bad people, or do I have to say "Woah, I can't make a judgment; murder is a legal matter"?

And what you're saying is that parents shouldn't be trusted to judge where the boundaries of a child's privacy lie? That's what parenting is, bro. Yes, there are some morons out there who can't discern what a decent definition of a boundary is, but parenting is entirely, one-hundred-and-ten-percent judging and clarifying those boundaries. There's not any debate there whatsoever. Stupid people abuse that, and those stupid people shouldn't be parents. But do they and should they still have the power of guardianship over a child until they violate the laws that have been put in place to prevent such abuses? Duh.

No, I'm saying that I disagree with a specific judgment of where the boundries lie. Like I said before, I'm just saying that I Disapprove of This Judgment, not that we should make it OMG ILLEGAL CALL HUMAN SERVICES AND TAKE THEIR KIDS AWAY. After all, I'm not violating any laws by disagreeing with someone's actions, and I certainly don't see why I should be obligated to approve of everything which is legal. Being a jerk is totally legal but I still don't like it. I think it's reasonable for me to say "I don't think people should be jerks. It's not the best way to act." Yet apparently doing so is a campaign to take away jerk rights, or something.

Strip searching a child isn't a violation of privacy, it's a violation of that child's rights.

Their right to what? And is there any reason it can't be a violation of privacy and some other right? In the case of strip searches in particular, a large part of the objection is that those performing the search are forcing you to reveal something which you wish to keep private from them against your will (ie your nude body) and have a reasonable expectation to keep private (since, y'know, there's a taboo on nudity), and that this is humiliating and emotionally damaging. Isn't there legitimate grounds to call that a violation of privacy?

Incidentally, this seems like a good time to bring up the idea of private property and trespass laws. We can even draw an analogy between trespass to property and trespass to person. Indeed, the key idea behind many laws is that other people generally don't have a right to interfere with your person, your personal affairs, or your stuff (without consent or a good reason, of course). Isn't this the same basic idea as privacy?

[Ampersand]

No, no, you're missing the point. You said that Apersand's point was that parents legally have carte blanche (which, as rennaT rightly points out, implies that you can do whatever the hell you want). I was demonstrating that they do not have carte blanche because - as you have both acknowledged - some of these acts are quite clearly illegal. The same goes with judging people for their attitude to the civil liberties of children - society as a whole would judge the kind of racism I described as terrible parenting, which one reason that it's (possibly) illegal. I'm not suggesting that searching someone's room immediately leads to being an abusive, racist bastard - merely that it's clear that people are judged on their parenting and that there are already limits on how much you can violate your kid's privacy. It is therefore incorrect to state that parents have legal carte blanche or that nobody's parenting can be judged as poor.

Quite a technicality you're getting out on there. Here's the problem, though. Parents do have that carte blanche only within the confines of the law, confines of morality, and confines of society. Arguing otherwise is kinda silly, wouldn't you think? To assume that I was putting that forth due to a simple misunderstanding of a forum-based text debate seems to be taking things a bit too far. It's certainly not a "Do whatever the Hell you want," but when you think about what parenting is, parents are *assumed* to do what's right for a child. Again, that's the goal of parenting. I don't know how much better I could have put it, really, but in the end, if we don't assume that this hypothetical parent that we're talking about is indeed looking out for the best interests of the child, then I think this entire topic is null and void, right?

If you want a legal example, the courts are totally down with alcoholism, but I think we can all agree that constant drunkeness isn't the best parenting strategy out there.

Also, why aren't I allowed to judge people who engage in illegal acts as bad parents? Surely the fact that it's illegal as well as harmful makes it even worse parenting? Am I allowed to call murderers bad people, or do I have to say "Woah, I can't make a judgment; murder is a legal matter"?

Because things that are unlawful aren't specifically immoral, and certainly there are many things that are immoral that aren't unlawful for some reason. If a parent has to steal in order to feed his or her children, then I would be absolutely correct in saying that they're being a better parent than one who lets their child starve to death. So no, I think you're just incorrect in this aspect. This in particular is where social norms come into play - They aren't specifically unlawful or immoral, but there are things that are commonly accepted and frowned upon. I certainly don't think someone who specifically disagrees with the societal norm of "Don't strip search your kids" can ever fall under this category, since even though it's not unlawful, it certainly is immoral, but some folk think it's acceptable somehow anyway. I don't think any rational person would argue based upon a very small niche demographic, do you?

Strip searching a child isn't a violation of privacy, it's a violation of that child's rights.

Their right to what? And is there any reason it can't be a violation of privacy and some other right? In the case of strip searches in particular, a large part of the objection is that those performing the search are forcing you to reveal something which you wish to keep private from them against your will (ie your nude body) and have a reasonable expectation to keep private (since, y'know, there's a taboo on nudity), and that this is humiliating and emotionally damaging. Isn't there legitimate grounds to call that a violation of privacy?

Incidentally, this seems like a good time to bring up the idea of private property and trespass laws. We can even draw an analogy between trespass to property and trespass to person. Indeed, the key idea behind many laws is that other people generally don't have a right to interfere with your person, your personal affairs, or your stuff (without consent or a good reason, of course). Isn't this the same basic idea as privacy?

Let's put it this way - When you give your child a bath, you're stripping them down, and a lot of times, they don't want to take a bath, and thus, you're stripping them down against their will. You're stripping them down in order to keep their hygiene at an acceptable level. How could this possibly differ from stripping them down to make sure there are no things that can harm them or others? If you suspected that your child was carrying a firearm or narcotics, then certainly there is an entirely valid reason to make sure they're not, correct? Both acts are against their will, I would assume, and both are for their own good.

Now, before more words are placed in my mouth, I'm not a proponent of strip-searching your child for any reason, but I'd really like to know how anyone makes that distinction with any level of certainty or decent rationale.

[Tanner]

Quite a technicality you're getting out on there. Here's the problem, though. Parents do have that carte blanche only within the confines of the law, confines of morality, and confines of society. Arguing otherwise is kinda silly, wouldn't you think? To assume that I was putting that forth due to a simple misunderstanding of a forum-based text debate seems to be taking things a bit too far. It's certainly not a "Do whatever the Hell you want," but when you think about what parenting is, parents are *assumed* to do what's right for a child. Again, that's the goal of parenting. I don't know how much better I could have put it, really, but in the end, if we don't assume that this hypothetical parent that we're talking about is indeed looking out for the best interests of the child, then I think this entire topic is null and void, right?

I think what you meant to type is, "I'm sorry, Tanner and Atilla, because when I said carte blanche, I actually meant carte beige or carte off-white because I meant that parents should get free rein within the confines of the reins already in place. I just figured you'd get that from my intonation. Either way, we cool?"

We cool, Blizz. We cool.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think that what you mean is,

"Every time somebody says something I don't entirely agree with, I blow it far out of proportion by using unbelievable sarcasm and let Atilla do all of the actual debating."


What Amps said was that parents had carte blanche to invade their children's privacy. If someone asked me to borrow my car, and I said that they could do whatever they wanted with the car this weekend, that still doesn't mean that I'm inviting them to murder somebody in the car. Some of the people on your side of the debate are complaining that people don't know how to deal in degrees; well, you need to realize that saying that a parent should have the right to decide what they can do in regards to their child's privacy does not mean invasive anal rape.

[Tanner]

I think that what you mean is,

"Every time somebody says something I don't entirely agree with, I blow it far out of proportion by using unbelievable sarcasm and let Atilla do all of the actual debating."

Yeah, dawg, because you know I was the first person in this thread to paraphrase someone else's argument in a sarcastic way. Oh wait...

What Amps said was that parents had carte blanche to invade their children's privacy. If someone asked me to borrow my car, and I said that they could do whatever they wanted with the car this weekend, that still doesn't mean that I'm inviting them to murder somebody in the car. Some of the people on your side of the debate are complaining that people don't know how to deal in degrees; well, you need to realize that saying that a parent should have the right to decide what they can do in regards to their child's privacy does not mean invasive anal rape.

I know that you wouldn't strip search a thirteen year old girl, SlappyMcGee. I know you have no desire to do so. I don't know why you're advocating on behalf of this mindset.

I think perhaps you should understand that these were not sociopaths, either. These were educated, professional, certified teachers. Plural. Who watches the Watchmen, Slappy?

[Ampersand]

Quite a technicality you're getting out on there. Here's the problem, though. Parents do have that carte blanche only within the confines of the law, confines of morality, and confines of society. Arguing otherwise is kinda silly, wouldn't you think? To assume that I was putting that forth due to a simple misunderstanding of a forum-based text debate seems to be taking things a bit too far. It's certainly not a "Do whatever the Hell you want," but when you think about what parenting is, parents are *assumed* to do what's right for a child. Again, that's the goal of parenting. I don't know how much better I could have put it, really, but in the end, if we don't assume that this hypothetical parent that we're talking about is indeed looking out for the best interests of the child, then I think this entire topic is null and void, right?

I think what you meant to type is, "I'm sorry, Tanner and Atilla, because when I said carte blanche, I actually meant carte beige or carte off-white because I meant that parents should get free rein within the confines of the reins already in place. I just figured you'd get that from my intonation. Either way, we cool?"

We cool, Blizz. We cool.

I dunno. I usually assume reasonable people infer reasonable things from reasonable arguments. My mistake.

[blue_tetris]

Atilla:

You figure parents shouldn't have the right to violate their child's privacy to a certain degree. What exactly is that degree? How far can a parent go before they are violating their child's privacy unlawfully?

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't have any idea what t-dawg was talking about, so I'll address more of what Atilla was saying.


I think that we probably frown on the idea of a parent being drunk all of the time, but imagine a household in which the child received an excellent upbringing. Unlikely though this scenario was, if the child never saw his drunken father drink, received meals always, and was taken care of extremely well, we'd have no reason to take the child away. The point where we take the child away is the inevitability of a drunken parent abusing their child, whether it be through malnutrition or just neglect.

Which I think applies here; you talk about the privacy of a child as if it were some sort of sacred thing that we can not touch. I believe that a parent does have carte blanche when it comes to a child's privacy, just like I think adults and parents should have the right to drink whenever they want. It is when this overlaps with another law where it becomes a problem. There is nothing wrong with looking through your kid's room. You might not do it, because you respect the kid's privacy or you want to raise some sort of mutual feeling of respect, or whatever, but that isn't the issue at hand. That doesn't change the idea that you still have the right to look through his room, as do all other parents. If you want to judge another parent, that's not something I agree with, but fine. Do you think there should be legislation passed on something like this? Do you think that parents should serve as little more than money and food suppliers to the child, and not try and impart to them greater wisdom, and not try to keep them safe? Having the feeling that you would be able to better protect your kid by searching through their room does not mean you will have the feeling you can better protect your kid by strip-searching him. I feel like what is important here is, as Tanner pointed out, Ampersand made a sarcastic over-blown statement in order to try and enforce a point, whereas your argument seems to hinge on taking things and overblowing them.

[Atilla]

Quite a technicality you're getting out on there. Here's the problem, though. Parents do have that carte blanche only within the confines of the law, confines of morality, and confines of society. Arguing otherwise is kinda silly, wouldn't you think? To assume that I was putting that forth due to a simple misunderstanding of a forum-based text debate seems to be taking things a bit too far. It's certainly not a "Do whatever the Hell you want," but when you think about what parenting is, parents are *assumed* to do what's right for a child. Again, that's the goal of parenting. I don't know how much better I could have put it, really, but in the end, if we don't assume that this hypothetical parent that we're talking about is indeed looking out for the best interests of the child, then I think this entire topic is null and void, right?

By that definition it seems like a chessboard would be carte blanche - completely white, except for the bits that aren't. Why call it carte blanche if it's subject to all these restrictions? Isn't that like saying slaves are free, insofar as "free" means "they can do what they want within the confines of what their master enforces"? Especially when it was later suggested that parents legally had carte blanche, which would imply that there were no legal constraints on their actions (which, I think we all agree, is demonstrably false). If that's not what you're saying, great. But I think it's misleading to call some heavily restricted set of things you can do without suffering legal/social repercussions "carte blanche".

If you want a legal example, the courts are totally down with alcoholism, but I think we can all agree that constant drunkeness isn't the best parenting strategy out there.

Also, why aren't I allowed to judge people who engage in illegal acts as bad parents? Surely the fact that it's illegal as well as harmful makes it even worse parenting? Am I allowed to call murderers bad people, or do I have to say "Woah, I can't make a judgment; murder is a legal matter"?

Because things that are unlawful aren't specifically immoral, and certainly there are many things that are immoral that aren't unlawful for some reason. If a parent has to steal in order to feed his or her children, then I would be absolutely correct in saying that they're being a better parent than one who lets their child starve to death. So no, I think you're just incorrect in this aspect. This in particular is where social norms come into play - They aren't specifically unlawful or immoral, but there are things that are commonly accepted and frowned upon. I certainly don't think someone who specifically disagrees with the societal norm of "Don't strip search your kids" can ever fall under this category, since even though it's not unlawful, it certainly is immoral, but some folk think it's acceptable somehow anyway. I don't think any rational person would argue based upon a very small niche demographic, do you?

I don't even understand what you're even going for here. Slappy said, and I quote: "Legally speaking, we've already covered all of the bases you've brought up, it isn't up to you to opine that these people (ie people who forcibly strip-search their children, forbid them to date black people, etc.) are bad parents, because the only things you've described that make them "bad parents" are breaches of the law, and therefore a legal matter."

My response is, essentially, "Being illegal doesn't mean it's not bad parenting! If someone is abusing their kids - which is of course illegal - it's perfectly reasonable for me to state that doing so is terrible parenting. It would be bad parenting even if it were not illegal, because it harms the children. So why do you, Slappy, appear to be arguing that I cannot judge people who do such horrible things as bad parents?"

Not to mention that you've just suggested you don't think that strip-searching your kid is unlawful. When I was responding what appears to be a claim that I should not criticize people for poor behaviour if that behaviour is illegal. If it's not illegal then Slappy's point about it being a "legal matter" is moot, so... why are you arguing about my response?

EDIT: Oh, and Slappy seems to have clarified his point, so this might be out of date.

Strip searching a child isn't a violation of privacy, it's a violation of that child's rights.

Their right to what? And is there any reason it can't be a violation of privacy and some other right? In the case of strip searches in particular, a large part of the objection is that those performing the search are forcing you to reveal something which you wish to keep private from them against your will (ie your nude body) and have a reasonable expectation to keep private (since, y'know, there's a taboo on nudity), and that this is humiliating and emotionally damaging. Isn't there legitimate grounds to call that a violation of privacy?

Incidentally, this seems like a good time to bring up the idea of private property and trespass laws. We can even draw an analogy between trespass to property and trespass to person. Indeed, the key idea behind many laws is that other people generally don't have a right to interfere with your person, your personal affairs, or your stuff (without consent or a good reason, of course). Isn't this the same basic idea as privacy?

Let's put it this way - When you give your child a bath, you're stripping them down, and a lot of times, they don't want to take a bath, and thus, you're stripping them down against their will. You're stripping them down in order to keep their hygiene at an acceptable level. How could this possibly differ from stripping them down to make sure there are no things that can harm them or others? If you suspected that your child was carrying a firearm or narcotics, then certainly there is an entirely valid reason to make sure they're not, correct? Both acts are against their will, I would assume, and both are for their own good.

Now, before more words are placed in my mouth, I'm not a proponent of strip-searching your child for any reason, but I'd really like to know how anyone makes that distinction with any level of certainty or decent rationale.

Since you yourself are not a proponent of strip-searches and have stated that they are immoral and a violation of the child's rights, wouldn't you already know how someone makes that distinction with a level of certainty and decent rationale? Also, you failed to answer my question about what right is being infringed, and why and infringement of privacy and that right cannot occur at the same time.

A bath, you say? If your 16-year-old son came home dirty from playing football, and just wanted to collapse in bed without taking a bath, I don't think it would be justifiable to drag him into the bathroom, strip him, and hold him down while you run the water. Indeed, I'm reasonably sure such an act would be considered indecent assault. Young children, the kind who are being forcibly bathed, generally haven't internalised the taboo on nudity as much as older ones (at least around their parents) and are thus less humiliated by enforced nudity. Furthermore, I suspect that most children object to the actual bath and the getting of shampoo in their eyes rather than the being nude part. This is not so with strip searches, where it is being undressed which causes humiliation. Furthermore, if your 16-year-old outright refuses to have a bath, ever, I think you need to seek advice from a qualified professional, not attempt to forcibly bathe them.

It's also clear that not bathing causes problems for everyone, whereas not being strip-searched is only potentially damaging for the minority of people who happen to actually be carrying narcotics strapped to their genitalia at the time they are searched (and being strip-searched is very unpleasant for the large majority). And I don't think any rational person would argue based upon a very small niche demographic, do you?

That doesn't change the idea that you still have the right to look through his room, as do all other parents. If you want to judge another parent, that's not something I agree with, but fine. Do you think there should be legislation passed on something like this?

...

I don't see why being a parent should give you a magical immunity to all criticism, and it's not like I'm advocating that we send the SWAT teams in to "liberate" their children.

There's also the fact that legality doesn't really come into it. I don't think anyone was arguing that it was illegal for a parent to riffle through their child's belongings, just that it's not really the best way to go about things.

I'm saying that I disagree with a specific judgment of where the boundries lie. Like I said before, I'm just saying that I Disapprove of This Judgment, not that we should make it OMG ILLEGAL CALL HUMAN SERVICES AND TAKE THEIR KIDS AWAY.
...
Being a jerk is totally legal but I still don't like it. I think it's reasonable for me to say "I don't think people should be jerks. It's not the best way to act." Yet apparently doing so is a campaign to take away jerk rights, or something.

So, just in case you haven't got it: I think going through all your child's belongings and all their contacts on the basis of some silly list of "symptoms", most of which are normal behaviour for many teenagers, is not the best way to parent - even though you may have the right to do so. By the same token, I think constantly getting trashed in front of your kids or telling them that teen pregnancy is awesome and they should be popping out kids at 14 is not the best way to parent - even though it's completely legal and you have a right to do it.

I also object to the more general argument that parents can invade their kids' privacy however they wish without suffering legal repercussions or at the very least being subject to societal disapproval, which is what seems to be implied when you state that they have carte blanche. Children are protected from other abuses from their parents (assault, sexual abuse, negligence) even though their rights are more restricted than those of adults (for example, you can legally smack a disobedient child but not a disobedient employee). Since the privacy of adults is protected I think it is only reasonable that children should also enjoy a degree of protection in this regard, and thus parents do not have an unfettered right to violate their child's privacy.

[blue_tetris]

You've all violently distracted from original topic and selectively replied. I harken back to macaddict days. :(

[SlappyMcGee]

I think I get a lot of where you are coming from, but I tend to not understand why you could believe that something is both wrong and should remain legal. Are you just saying in general, or would your perfect society have this thing outlawed as well?

[Atilla]

Why on Earth would you want to make everything you disapprove of illegal? Bludgeoning everyone over the head with the huge, clumsy hammer of Judgment isn't always the ideal way to solve things, especially in cases where the offence is relatively minor or whether the matter is actually wrong is not widely agreed upon. When someone is grouchy, that's clearly not a very nice way to behave, but surely it is also clear that taking them to court over it is going a bit far.

[blue_tetris]

I think I get a lot of where you are coming from, but I tend to not understand why you could believe that something is both wrong and should remain legal. Are you just saying in general, or would your perfect society have this thing outlawed as well?

Huh? You can disagree with something and still respect the right of other people to do it. Would you want to outlaw, legally, ever type of music that you think is shit and every opinion about modern theatre you find to be off-base? Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Illegal is something that most everyone wholeheartedly agrees is not just a wrong way to think, but is also detrimental to those around them.

Smoking cigarettes is wrong--that stuff will kill you. Apparently, driving cars with poor fuel economy is wrong--that hurts the environment and wastes your money. I fear the world in which things like that are also illegal.

[otters]

I think I get a lot of where you are coming from, but I tend to not understand why you could believe that something is both wrong and should remain legal. Are you just saying in general, or would your perfect society have this thing outlawed as well?

Huh? You can disagree with something and still respect the right of other people to do it. Would you want to outlaw, legally, ever type of music that you think is shit and every opinion about modern theatre you find to be off-base? Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Illegal is something that most everyone wholeheartedly agrees is not just a wrong way to think, but is also detrimental to those around them.

Smoking cigarettes is wrong--that stuff will kill you. Apparently, driving cars with poor fuel economy is wrong--that hurts the environment and wastes your money. I fear the world in which things like that are also illegal.

It appears to me that you're fantastically blowing this out of proportion.

Murder is illegal. I think it's wrong.
Rape is illegal. I think it's wrong.
Death metal is legal. I don't think it's wrong, just shitty.
" " is legal. " " " " ", " ".

[Atilla]

Drinking the last cup of coffee from the office pot and not refilling it is wrong, since it inconveniences other people. I don't think we should make it illegal, though. Are you seriously telling me you want to live in a society where forgetting to fill the coffee pot would result in police jumping out of the janitor's closet and arresting you?

[otters]

Drinking the last cup of coffee from the office pot and not refilling it is wrong, since it inconveniences other people. I don't think we should make it illegal, though. Are you seriously telling me you want to live in a society where forgetting to fill the coffee pot would result in police jumping out of the janitor's closet and arresting you?

I...no. That's not anything like what I meant. I said you guys were blowing it out of proportion: that is, taking "would you want something wrong to be legal" and assigning the word wrong to every inconvenient/debatable action. Sure I think taking the last cup of coffee and not refilling the pot is wrong: it's inconsiderate, but it's not a felony.

I mean, honestly. Did you super-define "wrong" to have something to argue with Slappy about?

[blue_tetris]

Drinking the last cup of coffee from the office pot and not refilling it is wrong, since it inconveniences other people. I don't think we should make it illegal, though. Are you seriously telling me you want to live in a society where forgetting to fill the coffee pot would result in police jumping out of the janitor's closet and arresting you?

I...no. That's not anything like what I meant. I said you guys were blowing it out of proportion: that is, taking "would you want something wrong to be legal" and assigning the word wrong to every inconvenient/debatable action. Sure I think taking the last cup of coffee and not refilling the pot is wrong: it's inconsiderate, but it's not a felony.

I mean, honestly. Did you super-define "wrong" to have something to argue with Slappy about?

I tend to not understand why you could believe that something is both wrong and should remain legal.

Read things, please.