New Cadet Conduct after Accepting Appointment

Random though based on that website could one be apart of West Point's wine tasting thing (idk if its a club or what) if they are under 21 with parental consent?
 
buff81 said:
And I respectfully disagree.
Unless you are 21, drinking is illegal.
Not displaying a lot of leadership or character by breaking the law.
The message that I get from your post is that it's OK to do something illegal- as long as it's in private?
Click to expand...

All right. I'll bite.

As long as it doesn't harm/adversely affect anybody else, I don't see a problem with it. Private business is private business. Once it affects somebody else it becomes public business. I'm sure we can argue all day about second and third order affects of personal descisions, but at a certain point, you've gotta just say that, pardon my french, **** happens.

Just because something's illegal doesn't make it immoral, and vice-versa. Morality isn't a clear-cut, black and white thing. It's shades of grey. Just because someone knowingly chooses to break a law or a regulation doesn't make them a bad person. I offer an example:

According to regulations, we're supposed to have a bottle of hand sanitizer on our person at all times. I doubt I could find a cadet that actually follows this regulation. Same goes for the ACE card. Does this mean that 95%+ of the Corps is comprised of bad people? I don't think so. Same goes for something like speeding, which, at least in my state, means going any speed above(and sometimes below) the speed limit.

My point is, ignoring a regulation or a law doesn't necessarily impinge upon your character. Sometimes it is, really and truly, not a big deal.
 
linkgmr said:
All right. I'll bite.

As long as it doesn't harm/adversely affect anybody else, I don't see a problem with it. Private business is private business. Once it affects somebody else it becomes public business. I'm sure we can argue all day about second and third order affects of personal descisions, but at a certain point, you've gotta just say that, pardon my french, **** happens.

Just because something's illegal doesn't make it immoral, and vice-versa. Morality isn't a clear-cut, black and white thing. It's shades of grey. Just because someone knowingly chooses to break a law or a regulation doesn't make them a bad person. I offer an example:

According to regulations, we're supposed to have a bottle of hand sanitizer on our person at all times. I doubt I could find a cadet that actually follows this regulation. Same goes for the ACE card. Does this mean that 95%+ of the Corps is comprised of bad people? I don't think so. Same goes for something like speeding, which, at least in my state, means going any speed above(and sometimes below) the speed limit.

My point is, ignoring a regulation or a law doesn't necessarily impinge upon your character. Sometimes it is, really and truly, not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Ah, the voice of experience cries out...
 
AKH said:
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. So deciding when to take an illegal risk is going to be useful in the Army? Breaking the law is worth it for a few hours of fun? If you're going to be whatever person you want and "cut loose" until R-Day and not impose any standards or models of behavior on yourself before then, I think one would have trouble adjusting to having such things imposed on them very suddenly. Obviously I'm not even a New Cadet yet so maybe my opinion doesn't matter but I think your viewpoint is skewed.

A parallel discussion is going on in the "Pardon my paranoia" thread and I think buff's point sums it all up:
Click to expand...

Okay, first off, just because you're just a candidate doesn't mean that your opinion doesn't matter. It's a valid argument but I still disagree with you. :wink:

To me, there are certain things that just aren't that big of a deal. Some regs flat out aren't followed, and some laws are flaunted so often that as long as you don't go and advertise the fact that you're breaking the law, there is almost no chance that you will be found in violation. No harm, no foul, no problem.

The transition from civilian to cadet is difficult in itself, and there may be some validity to your argument that you would be making it a tougher transition by relaxing for the last couple months. That being said, I think that the change in the difficulty of the transition would be negligible or completely reversed by the effect of knowing that you made the most of your last few months as a civilian and have no regrets.

As for buff's point...
Technically, you're not in the military until you take the oath. Just because you're appointed to West Point doesn't mean that you can't change your mind at the last minute and go to UCLA or University of Colorodo. Ergo, in my opinion, your reputation is still your own until R-Day, when you sign your papers and join the U.S. Army.

Please forgive the double negatives. I type like I talk. :smile:
 
From linkgmr "Just because something's illegal doesn't make it immoral, and vice-versa."

In the law, it's the difference between a crime being "malum in se" or "malum prohibitum."

"In se" crimes are inherently wrong/immoral. That means, even if there was no statute, it would be a wrong in and of itself. Things like murder, theft, and rape fall into this category. "Prohibitum" crimes are illegal because they are declared illegal by statute or regulation. Drug possession and traffic offenses fall into this category. Drinking underage is also a malum prohibitum offense, so it is not an evil or wrong in and of itself. Thus, in the broadest of scope, someone's character should not be negatively affected solely on the basis that they drink alcohol at an age under 21 (one must look at the mitigating circumstances). Indeed, as one of the others on this thread stated, other countries have no drinking age (or it is lower than 21), and apparently some States allow someone under 21 to drink on a private property with consent of parents (via the link posted). In those circumstances, it is not a moral or a legal problem.

That said, it's still a crime under most circumstances here in the US. Thus, if you choose to engage in the behavior while knowing it is illegal, there is both a legal and a moral problem. With regard to USMA, I don't think the problem they will have is so much with the drinking, as it is with the choice to intentionally disregard the law. Indeed, the choice to drink underage in a jurisdiction/situation where one knows it to be illegal does pose an ethical problem. That is, it's the willful disregard for the law, as opposed to actual consumption of alcohol, which I think would raise eyebrows at USMA.

The lesson is to use the best possible judgment in the situation you are in. If you know something to be illegal, and you choose to do it, you have made an ethical compromise (assuming you were not under duress or have some other legal defense to justify the action). You can say "everyone else does it," or "drinking is no big deal," but you'd be rationalizing. If you know it to be illegal and choose to do it anyway, there is a problem.

If you really can't wait to take a drink in circumstances that don't impact others, I suggest you book a trip to Europe or Canada. In fact, I suggest you do that anyway if you have the means, as it is extrodinary. I did a study abroad at St. Anne's College at Oxford while I was a 20 year-old VMI cadet. It was one of the best couple of months of my life from an intellectual as well as a social perspective. I could drink responsibly there and be fully compliant with the law, and it was a nice addition to the overall immersion in English culture. Something to think about.
 
Last edited:
I see your point.

I disagree with you, though. Some rules are arbitrary and stupid. I understand the concept that a proper response to finding out something is illegal is not "why", but at the same time, when the only justification for something being illegal is "it's the law" it certainly begs the question.

Oftentimes it seems that whether or not a law gets passed depends upon who writes the biggest check or influences the right people in an organization. Take the drinking law for example. The whole reason that the states adopted the no purchase under 21 law is because the federal government threatened to cut 10% of their funding for highways if they did not adopt a law to that effect. The federal government intentionally found a workaround of the Interstate Commerce Clause, knowing that the states wouldn't tolerate a decline in revenue. Is working around the Constitution a morally correct thing to do? Is creating a subclass of citizens, aged 18 to 21, who are technically full citizens of the United States and are able to vote, but unable to consume alcohol even constitutional under the doctrine of equal protection?

Governments the world over have passed bad laws and done bad things. Is compliance with all laws necessary to be a moral person of sound character, even if you believe the laws to be themselves to be bad?
 
linkgmr said:
I see your point.

I disagree with you, though. Some rules are arbitrary and stupid. I understand the concept that a proper response to finding out something is illegal is not "why", but at the same time, when the only justification for something being illegal is "it's the law" it certainly begs the question.

Oftentimes it seems that whether or not a law gets passed depends upon who writes the biggest check or influences the right people in an organization. Take the drinking law for example. The whole reason that the states adopted the no purchase under 21 law is because the federal government threatened to cut 10% of their funding for highways if they did not adopt a law to that effect. The federal government intentionally found a workaround of the Interstate Commerce Clause, knowing that the states wouldn't tolerate a decline in revenue. Is working around the Constitution a morally correct thing to do? Is creating a subclass of citizens, aged 18 to 21, who are technically full citizens of the United States and are able to vote, but unable to consume alcohol even constitutional under the doctrine of equal protection?

Governments the world over have passed bad laws and done bad things. Is compliance with all laws necessary to be a moral person of sound character, even if you believe the laws to be themselves to be bad?
Click to expand...

No.

The Courts are your recourse for the challenging of laws if you believe them to be unconstitutional. I caution you on one thing, however. To challenge a law, you must have suffered an injury-in-fact because of its enforcement, and you must have grounds to believe the law to be unconstitutional. Just because you disagree with it philosophically, or think it "unfair," doesn't make it unconstitutional. Indeed, there are many unpopular laws out there which are nonetheless constitutional. To change those type of statutes/regs, your best avenue is the ballot box. You can see the importance of voting here. Write your Congressman or State Reps and let them know how you feel.

As I said, the proper venue to address a law believed to be constitutionally "bad" is in the courts. Civil disobedience with subsequent litigation has changed a lot of laws which were unconstitutional. Your point is considered, and I won't disagree with your sentiment.

However, with regard to the OP and his concern over USMA's feelings about actions before entrance into WP, I'd disagree that the summer before R-day is the best time to become an advocate for the changing of the drinking age. Indeed, the drinking age as it stands is not going anywhere, and I can't really see an argument as to how it is unconstitutional. Thus, you may not like it, but you have to either choose to obey it, or, face the consequences for disobeying it. If you think it unfair, write your State Reps. USMA, I imagine, will not look favorably on a "this law is BS, so I said screw it" type of defense.
 
Last edited:
sprog said:
However, with regard to the OP and his concern over USMA's feelings about actions before entrance into WP, I'd disagree that the summer before R-day is the best time to become an advocate for the changing of the drinking age. ... you may not like it, but you have to either choose to obey it, or, face the consequences for disobeying it. If you think it unfair, write your State Reps. USMA, I imagine, will not look favorably on a "this law is BS, so I said screw it" type of defense.
Click to expand...

Excellent common sense advice. there is a time and a place for everything and that includes a time to conform and a time to push back. This is the time to conform. You want to push the limits of the system- wait until you are truly in the system.
The bottom line- the Army is not interested in hiring you as a social activist- they are hiring you to be a future officer in the Army- which is a position in which you FREQUENTLY will be called upon to obey and enforce rules and policies which in your heart of hearts you don't necessarily believe are important or even smart. If you don't have the self control to avoid doing something illegal now- what kind of message does that send to USMA about your ability to implement things that very well may be silly "BS" ?

BTW- I think that the 21 year old drinking age is silly and even offensive (you can go to Afghanistan and get killed but you can't have a beer even in an Enlisted club?!). But until 18 year old voters start voting in huge numbers and make the politicians think that they should pander to you- it isn't going to change. So go get your fellow 18-20 year old citizens to actually vote in Congressional elections, make "The honorable John Q Congressman" believe that he needs your support to win and suddenly it'll start to change. Until then- don't go out drinking with your buddies because it's the law and you are trying to get into a college slot for which 10 others applied- you are pretty easily replaceable if you screw this up this summer with a stunt like underage drinking.
 
@ Sprog

See, I think I agree with you in that respect. If you choose to drink, and you're caught, you suffer the consequences. But, if you're careful and responsible, i.e., you do it in a private place, with people you know, the chance of getting caught decreases to the point where it's really not a big deal. I'm not advocating going to raucous parties, getting utterly and completely smashed, and passing out in front of a police station. I'm just saying that having a couple drinks with friends at home is perfectly fine, that if you feel inclined to, you should go ahead, and that it doesn't make you any worse of a person for doing so. I see it as a personal choice, independent of morality.

To me, the name of the game is doing it in private rather than public. I have a few examples of things that are fine to do in private, but not public that I could compare it to, but I'm not sure if they are appropriate for this forum. :wink:

Kind of got a little off track with the whole right and wrong philosophical argument, but it is an interesting discussion nonetheless. :smile:
 
bruno said:
Excellent common sense advice. there is a time and a place for everything and that includes a time to conform and a time to push back. This is the time to conform. You want to push the limits of the system- wait until you are truly in the system.
The bottom line- the Army is not interested in hiring you as a social activist- they are hiring you to be a future officer in the Army- which is a position in which you FREQUENTLY will be called upon to obey and enforce rules and policies which in your heart of hearts you don't necessarily believe are important or even smart. If you don't have the self control to avoid doing something illegal now- what kind of message does that send to USMA about your ability to implement things that very well may be silly "BS" ?

BTW- I think that the 21 year old drinking age is silly and even offensive (you can go to Afghanistan and get killed but you can't have a beer even in an Enlisted club?!). But until 18 year old voters start voting in huge numbers and make the politicians think that they should pander to you- it isn't going to change. So go get your fellow 18-20 year old citizens to actually vote in Congressional elections, make "The honorable John Q Congressman" believe that he needs your support to win and suddenly it'll start to change. Until then- don't go out drinking with your buddies because it's the law and you are trying to get into a college slot for which 10 others applied- you are pretty easily replaceable if you screw this up this summer with a stunt like underage drinking.
Click to expand...

See, I agree with you about the whole going out part. That's just stupid. Drunk in Public just means you're a moron. But if it happens in a private setting it is generally going to be a consequence-free event, which is what I was originally trying to argue. Kind of got a little off track, but it's an interesting argument to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top