Recent Comments

Society's morals define that "cheating" is wrong, thus rule is formed --> To "cheat" breaks the rule --> Breaking rules lead to the Enforcement of "cheating" --> Enforcement reenforces the moral that "cheating" is wrong --> To "cheat" is to break the rule --> Breaking rules lead to the Enforcement of "cheating" --> etc.

Perpetual circularity until morals change. Morals can change (maybe, will change) if "cheating" is not enforced. Overtime, "cheating" is an accepted practice.

Need a real life example: Marijuana. Change the word "cheating" with "smoking marijuana," see where the logic is wrong.

I almost always regret getting into these trivial discussions, but nevertheless, I will offer this. While the latin phrases does in fact translate int bad in itself and bad by prohibition, their legal meanings equate to:

Malum en se - laws derived from common law (i.e. Judge made law).
Malum prohibitum - laws derived from statute (i.e. Legislature made law).

You are absolutely right - murder is malum en se, which was law derived from English common law way back in the 12th century. Likewise, speed limits are malum prohibitum, derived from State legislatures and Congress. However, malum en se laws are also derived from morality. (I defined morality above. Morality isn't limited to just what one believes in evil, but what is right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do.)

To use your example, speed limits. The concept of speed limits derive from a cultural morality (cultural norm, cultural value, whichever noun you prefer) on what is the proper speed to drive. Too fast is dangerous, not only to the driver in the car, but her passengers, and the other drivers on the road. There is no arbitrary reason why we have a speed limit. Legislatures created a speed limit to ensure the safety of all drivers because, as a group of citizens, we think that is better than the alternative. In other words, it's morally unacceptable to drive in a dangerous, life-threatening way. The actual specific speed limit number is arguably arbitrary, but that too is based on a reason (but probably not morals, but actual safety data).

The NCAA bylaw above is based on the morality (NCAA norms or cultures) that coaches and booster are not to advertise or promote their school of interest with banners, newspaper ads, and perhaps even trucks with their logo all over it. In other words, universities believe it is morally unacceptable to use money to purchase advertising to lure a recruit. Is it a stupid law? Probably. Is it arbitrary? No, the NCAA are trying to enforce a norm that is expected between schools. Is it based on current moral beliefs of universities? Debatable. Should it change if schools don't want that rule? Yes!! That's the beauty of law. It can change when the cultural morals and norms change!

Fun Fact: If you believe a law is wrong, you can LEGALLY disobey that law. However, you will have the burden in court to prove WHY that law is wrong.

Two Crystal Balls in for Ty Pigrome to Maryland from two Maryland insiders. They must believe they have an edge, but this could go either way still.

El Guads > El Rods all day. Was super bummed when they closed.

I think you mean his former job

Charlottesville has some killer restaurants. My absolute favorite burger is from Citizen Burger there. I used to find excuses for my girlfriend and I to go visit her sister at UVA, just for the food.

There will be more, especially a basic strategy. I wanted to do this before the season but time did not allow. This lays the ground work to talk about more advanced strategy. Probably 3-5 part series but it could be more

Good news that he is making a decision instead of earlier reports that he had reaffirmed to Florida.

Pages