Poll - Legalities

[Martinez]

I absolutely absolutely absolutely HATE that statement and how it can be used by people for unethical activites. Rules exist for a reason. They are created with a purpose. You may or may not agree to that purpose. This gives people two choices: Knowingly abide by the rule or willfully break it. If you break it, then fess up and take responsiblity for your consequences.

One could make this into a philosophical arguement along the lines of if a tree fell in the forest, does it make a sound. Regardless of if you believe in a higher power such as god or retrubution for your actions, the simple fact is that YOU know it happened: the tree has fallen. Such a statement is about avoiding consequences and your right, people are going to not get caught. You are still guilty of the deed. To me the deed, the action, the intent, the modivation are all far more important than the consequence for they measure the type of person you are.

Show some back bone, display maturity and own up to your actions. All ways always remember that those actions will have the direct influence on others, even if they never become aware of it. Do I bend, break, or not stand for the rules every moment of life? Of course not. Yet that does not matter, nor is it hypocritical, because it is the idea (and living true to that ideal) that matters. For me personally, it is also a issue of personal honor which is something that seems soarly lacking in this modern age.

A friend of mine argued with me what is the point in being honorable conciously knowing that the other person will not be so: that is puts you at the disadvanage and for it you will lose. Well I'm sorrying, if winning is that important to you then that is your problem. Losing with dignity is not losing, at least in my mind. There are more important things than winning such as being a better person for that is winning at life. And yes, I feel this applies at all levels be it the small day to day rules or life and death situations.

There was an example I glossed over about Slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. There are and were morally unethical rules on the books. Those people choose to break the rules !and accept the conquences for them! in order to promote social and political change. The point was to break the rules and get caught so that people would have to deal with issues at hand. Dr. Kings freely accepted resposiblity for his actions which latter resulted in one of his greatest papers coming from jail. The movement was not about shirking responsiblity, it was about awareness in a peaceful fashion.

So after such a long rant, I'm sure the question that needs to be answered is do I speed? Yes, abslutely on a near day to day basis. However, I drive with control and feel as though no ones life is in danger. I am willfully breaking the law to make my life easier. Its a very selfish thing to do. Nor have I been caught. The important difference that I am trying to make clear is that when I am caught, I am not going to haggle with the police officer. I'll take my ticket, pay my fine, and do it with a semismile for these are the results that ultimately I have chosen for myself.

[KenWittlief]

I gotta play devils advocate on this one.

If you break the rules, and nobody can tell / you dont get caught, then what difference does it make?

We are talking about rules that were created by humans - I am also a human with an equal capacity for discernment and intelligence. The people who wrote/created the rule used their best judgement at the time. When I am in a situation where following the rule is a problem, I may have specific information, or be in situation they did not consider.

To put it another way, Jesus said "The Sabboth was made for man, man was not made for the Sabboth". Rules exist for our benefit, in general situations. When a situation arises where that same rule is going to do more harm than good, then we are intelligent beings, we should do the right thing based on our knowledge and assessment of the situation

not based on what someone wrote on a piece of paper at some point the past.

[Richard Wallace]

Those who'd rather read than post may enjoy the classic, ancient take on the timeless question, "what is justice?"

[Steve W]

Many have posted that it OK as long as you feel it is and are willing to pay the penalty. Some said that they would never break a FIRST rule. What makes the difference between a FIRST rule and any other? If it is because it's a game then doesn't that make it less important than real life? If you become good at breaking some rules, won't it be easier to break others? Does the fact that you are knowingly willing to break rules have a negative impact on those that we are trying to change?

If you know me then you know that I have a few slight flaws (please no comments). You will also know that I fight hard to get rules changed if I do not believe in them. I do however at some point concede to the "Law Makers" and play under those rules. I have enjoyed the input so far. I may not agree but that is OK too. That is one of the great things about FIRSTers and CDers. We can discuss, debate and still remain friends.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by Steve W

...Many have posted that it OK as long as you feel it is and are willing to pay the penalty. Some said that they would never break a FIRST rule. What makes the difference between a FIRST rule and any other?...

Yes, the outside world affects what happens in this organization, but the game is much simpler than real life. The manual for our game is long, but the manual for the game of life is infinitely longer, and infinitely diverse between people and cultures. Though FIRST and the real world are comparable, they are not identical.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Many have posted that it OK as long as you feel it is and are willing to pay the penalty. Some said that they would never break a FIRST rule. What makes the difference between a FIRST rule and any other? If it is because it's a game then doesn't that make it less important than real life?

A game's rules are artificial. To a large extent, the game only works if the rules are followed. Because nobody can think of all possible ways someone might cheat, not all rule-breaking has defined consequences. If one breaks a rule in some games, the game itself fails, and everyone loses.

Real life has natural rules which automatically enforce natural consequences. Legislated rules have legal consequences. That makes a big difference.

[Billfred]

I have to agree, I can't answer the poll as written.

There are rules that need to be held as absolute (murder, for example), rules that should not be heeded at all, and there are rules that should be broken if there is a genuine purpose behind it that can not be solved through other means. (Consider the young boy who drove a stolen school bus full of evacuees from New Orleans to Houston following Hurricane Katrina.)

That's my view on things.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

This poll made me think of this.

Some examples from my home state:

* Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

*You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at
least two cows.

*One must obtain a permit from the city to throw hay in a cesspool.

*It is illegal to own a green or smelly animal hide.

*Bowling on the sidewalk is illegal.

*Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

*No one may annoy a lizard in a city park.

And so on..... (lol)

And yes, I realize that some of the laws are not accurate.

[Beth Sweet]

The only time that I have intentionally broken a rule was when I had no way to comply with it. This rule was the one at IRI that said that those who played in the mentor round had to be 25. As a college team who was competing, we did not have enough mentors over the age of 25 to compete, thus the 19 year old who started and had run the team for 2 years participated. Past that, we do our best to abide by the rules