Cornell (NY): Kappa Sigma Closes Chapter

Rightnyer · #1 05-08-2010, 07:55 PM

Yes, they broke the rules. But only a fool blindly submits to rules simply because they are rules. The 21 year old drinking age is stupid. As is punishing people for violating it. Punishments should be proportional to the offense. There are many people who argue that as long as you knew of the consequences, you were stupid for doing what you did to break the rules. But this could be applied to anything. An extreme example is cutting off the hands of thieves. The fact that something is a rule doesn't make it right.

AOII Angel · #2 05-08-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rightnyer

Yes, they broke the rules. But only a fool blindly submits to rules simply because they are rules. The 21 year old drinking age is stupid. As is punishing people for violating it. Punishments should be proportional to the offense. There are many people who argue that as long as you knew of the consequences, you were stupid for doing what you did to break the rules. But this could be applied to anything. An extreme example is cutting off the hands of thieves. The fact that something is a rule doesn't make it right.

Welcome back, Hampton. Flouncees can never stay away. I don't disagree that 21 year old drinking age is stupid, but it's the law. Take it up with your congressman. Until then, stupid or not, your chapter broke the terms of your probation. You knew the consequences of not following your probation. The purpose of probation is to improve on previous poor behavior and to prove that you can follow the rules (or at least effectively hide the breaking of such rules better than you did previously.) Apparently, as smart as all of you think you are, you just aren't smart enough to play the game. If you think this is rough, wait til you get out into the real world. Employers don't listen to your type of arguments anymore than Fraternity HQs or University Administrations do.

BTW, what is your definition of "Moderate" drinking? Just wondering what you think would be the cause of taking a person to the hospital other than alcohol poisoning when he has been "moderately" drinking? I don't buy the "he has a medical condition" BS...moderately drinking is equivalent of binge drinking and leads to alcohol poisoning. How do you know what a person can or cannot handle?

Rightnyer · #3 05-09-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Welcome back, Hampton. Flouncees can never stay away. I don't disagree that 21 year old drinking age is stupid, but it's the law. Take it up with your congressman. Until then, stupid or not, your chapter broke the terms of your probation. You knew the consequences of not following your probation. The purpose of probation is to improve on previous poor behavior and to prove that you can follow the rules (or at least effectively hide the breaking of such rules better than you did previously.) Apparently, as smart as all of you think you are, you just aren't smart enough to play the game. If you think this is rough, wait til you get out into the real world. Employers don't listen to your type of arguments anymore than Fraternity HQs or University Administrations do.

BTW, what is your definition of "Moderate" drinking? Just wondering what you think would be the cause of taking a person to the hospital other than alcohol poisoning when he has been "moderately" drinking? I don't buy the "he has a medical condition" BS...moderately drinking is equivalent of binge drinking and leads to alcohol poisoning. How do you know what a person can or cannot handle?

Haha, yeah, okay. I graduated from a school (not Cornell, and not Kappa Sigma) over 20 years ago. I have no more personal stake in this than you do. The fact is, you didn't refute any of my points. I argued that yes, in practicalities, they broke the rules. And employers make you follow their rules as well, unless of course, you are such a superstar that you can demand things be done your way.

But when we're discussing normative values; that is, what should be, not what is, coming back with a response as to what is does not really address my argument.

DrPhil · #4 05-09-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rightnyer

Haha, yeah, okay. I graduated from a school (not Cornell, and not Kappa Sigma) over 20 years ago. I have no more personal stake in this than you do. The fact is, you didn't refute any of my points. I argued that yes, in practicalities, they broke the rules. And employers make you follow their rules as well, unless of course, you are such a superstar that you can demand things be done your way.

But when we're discussing normative values; that is, what should be, not what is, coming back with a response as to what is does not really address my argument.

Sure, Hampton.

Psi U MC Vito · #5 05-09-2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rightnyer

Haha, yeah, okay. I graduated from a school (not Cornell, and not Kappa Sigma) over 20 years ago. I have no more personal stake in this than you do. The fact is, you didn't refute any of my points. I argued that yes, in practicalities, they broke the rules. And employers make you follow their rules as well, unless of course, you are such a superstar that you can demand things be done your way.

But when we're discussing normative values; that is, what should be, not what is, coming back with a response as to what is does not really address my argument.

So why then are you presenting things you have no first hand knowledge of as facts.

AOII Angel · #6 05-09-2010, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rightnyer

Haha, yeah, okay. I graduated from a school (not Cornell, and not Kappa Sigma) over 20 years ago. I have no more personal stake in this than you do. The fact is, you didn't refute any of my points. I argued that yes, in practicalities, they broke the rules. And employers make you follow their rules as well, unless of course, you are such a superstar that you can demand things be done your way.

But when we're discussing normative values; that is, what should be, not what is, coming back with a response as to what is does not really address my argument.

And when we are discussing normative values, the one in power has the right to define those values. The ones who are not can break the rules and take the conseuences...that's what free will is, not "I don't agree with you so I'm going to do what I want and get away with it." Nice try, though, Hampton!

naraht · #7 05-26-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Welcome back, Hampton. Flouncees can never stay away. I don't disagree that 21 year old drinking age is stupid, but it's the law. Take it up with your congressman.

Well, both congressman and members of the state legislature. The fact that the drinking age is 21 is the result of laws passed by the individual states, however this was the result of armtwisting by the US Congress, where a state would lose 10 percent of its money from the Highway funding allocation if it didn't make 21 the drinking age (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...inking_Age_Act)

Randy

AOII Angel · #8 05-26-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naraht

Well, both congressman and members of the state legislature. The fact that the drinking age is 21 is the result of laws passed by the individual states, however this was the result of armtwisting by the US Congress, where a state would lose 10 percent of its money from the Highway funding allocation if it didn't make 21 the drinking age (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...inking_Age_Act)

Randy

Exactly...that's what finally did it for Louisiana. We didn't want to lose our Highway money!

Rightnyer · #9 06-09-2010, 11:57 AM

Do you know what the word "normative" means AOPII? Apparently you don't, or you wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous response.

naraht · #10 06-09-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rightnyer

Do you know what the word "normative" means AOPII? Apparently you don't, or you wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous response.

In a discussion this complex, please quote the message that you are responding to, please. I spent a couple minutes trying to figure out how your response had to do with AOII Angel 's posting about Highway money and Louisiana. It was only after I went through the entire thread looking for the work normative that I found it.

Rightnyer · #11 06-11-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naraht

In a discussion this complex, please quote the message that you are responding to, please. I spent a couple minutes trying to figure out how your response had to do with AOII Angel 's posting about Highway money and Louisiana. It was only after I went through the entire thread looking for the work normative that I found it.

Sorry about that. She came back with some nonsense about how normative values are set by the rule makers. Which of course makes no sense.

Ghostwriter · #12 05-10-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rightnyer

Yes, they broke the rules. But only a fool blindly submits to rules simply because they are rules. The 21 year old drinking age is stupid. As is punishing people for violating it. Punishments should be proportional to the offense. There are many people who argue that as long as you knew of the consequences, you were stupid for doing what you did to break the rules. But this could be applied to anything. An extreme example is cutting off the hands of thieves. The fact that something is a rule doesn't make it right.

If you know the rules and the consequences for breaking said rules you are a "dumbass" if you break said rules and then whine about what the consequences were for doing so.

I am a Kappa Sig alumnus and know what the rules are and what the consequences are for breaking the rules. These guys just didn't give a crap. They need to shut up and grow/man up.