Vagabond-
You took my quote out of context. You can't expect my belief system to rely on that one sentence, now can you?
Ikhnaton, and whoever else-
I get the feeling that you, and others, are beginning to take offense. Do you think I am here to blab my mouth off? It makes no difference to me whether you drink or not, except I care. I have no argument that you enjoy alcohol - it's obvious you think very highly of it and go to great lengths to defend it. Trouble is you are no different than an alcoholic in denial, from my perspective. I have no idea that you may only have one drink a week and then tell yourself "No, I shouldn't have any more." Drinking, smoking, heroin - all these in moderation are fine from your perspective. Do as you wish, and if it screws you over you will know my point.
Personally, I can't live with anyone who drinks. Even one beer and I don't like what a person becomes. Is this my selfishness or yours, when you do something for/to yourself that hurts me? I will not tolerate comparing alcohol to food. The comparison is absurd. Might as well compare eating fish to eating humans. You say "You're just as selfish by trying to impose your views on us and comdemning us." Again, I have absolutely nothing to gain from this. I just feel humanity and all it stands for is disrespected by drinkers. If we can't live with what we are and rely on chemicals to change us I don't know where we are headed. Alcohol is not a bad thing. It is just another lump of matter. Your attitude towards it is what disturbs me.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
Hey man, you know what?
I think a little alchohol here and there is ok, I mean for those who drink say, wine for its flavor and their own reasons its ok.
If you drink to get drunk, now thats lame.
------------------
I feel the need to say something profound, but I'm drawing a blank.
TAF,
...I get the feeling that you, and others, are beginning to take offense...
Since I've already come out and said several times that I'm taking offense to your statements, then yes I'd say that you're on the right track here. Talk about being thick.
...I have no argument that you enjoy alcohol - it's obvious you think very highly of it and go to great lengths to defend it. Trouble is you are no different than an alcoholic in denial, from my perspective...
Your perspective is out of focus. I defend my right to consume an alcoholic beverage without being labeled an alcoholic. You know nothing about me nor anyone else on this board. Armed with such lacking personal knowledge of us, you are way out of line laying down the accusations that you have.
...I have no idea that you may only have one drink a week and then tell yourself "No, I shouldn't have any more"...
Exactly. Yet you have the nerve to come in here and start lecturing us adults in here about how we should be leading our lives. How we should conform to your lifestyle, and how we're bad people if we don't. I'm not a child, much less your child, and again, I highly resent the pompus manner in which your statements are written.
...I just feel humanity and all it stands for is disrespected by drinkers...
I feel that humanity and all it stands for is disrespected by people who condemn others because they don't share the same belief system.
...Your attitude towards it is what disturbs me...
I don't have an attitude toward it. I have an attitude toward freedom and mutual respect. I have an attitude toward self-determination, tolerance, and acceptance of the differences among all people; I embrace these differences.
What angers me is people who lecture others with this greater-than-thou attitude; people that think they have all the answers; people that think they know best and the rest of us are too stupid to figure anything out for ourselves; people who tell you how wrong or bad you are for not following their own personal beliefs.
Don't get me wrong. I love discussing peoples' beliefs, especially ones that are different from my own. But when people tell me that I'm wrong because my beliefs are different, then my response quickly turns hostile. Some of you here can already attest to this.
Don't condemn me if I'm different than you, and I'll return the favor.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
From those quotes:
1)"...from my perspective."
2)"I have no idea..."
3)"I just feel..."
4)"...is what disturbs me."
This is my opinion, not what I believe is concrete. You say:
when people tell me that I'm wrong because my beliefs are different, then my response quickly turns hostile.
Did I say you were wrong? No, I told you how things are viewed from my perspective. There is nothing to base our beliefs on, and the matter can be totally relative. How would you feel if I told you I used heroin, LSD, mirajuana, and sniffed paint in moderation? We all have to draw the line somewhere. Like Ike (that rhymes) presented, there is a fuzzy transition from candy/food to alcohol. In this manner, you could compare alcohol in moderation to smoking in moderation, smoking in moderation to hardcore drugs in moderation. I feel that sometimes moderation isn't enough. Some things just shouldn't be dealt with or else major aspects of our lives are at stake. I keep it real, taking the extent of mental pleasure/alteration to cookies with milk and occasionally icecream. Even if I abuse them and go beyond moderation, I can correct my mistake with exercize and abstinence and nobody can or will ever be harmed. Alcohol is different, no argument otherwise. Strict moderation should yield no hardships, but if you've even once felt a tad bit tipsy I wonder what you might do, what you might say, who's feelings you might hurt, who you may kill. I draw the line very early and only pleasure myself with stimulating, awareness unaltering, and RELATIVELY safe substances. Again, my argument here isn't that ALL alcoholic drinkers are "bad", it is that sooner or later a choice needs to be made on what substances we will ever practice moderation with, and alcohol has been proven to me to be a substance that does more damage than good, with use at any level. But yes, this is my opinion, and when you don't like what you hear don't start raving that I am "Big Brother" coming to supress your freedom.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
Oh, and when I said humanity and all it stands for is disrespected by drinkers, I meant that statistic:
Roughly one in eight American adult drinkers is alcoholic or experiences problems due to the use of alcohol. The cost to society is estimated at approximately $166 billion each year.
Even if you think you do drink in moderation, you should think about that.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
Vagabond--
To summarize, from my point of view, you come into what is obviously a light-hearted thread, and then start making judgements about people in here based off of your own personal beliefs toward alcohol.
Sorry to rain on your light-hearted thread. I will make this response, then leave you to your fun.
First, I haven't judged anybody. I've expressed an observation regarding an attitude that I detected, which I think is typical of an unhealthy relationship our culture generally has toward alcohol. I never accused anyone of being an alcoholic. I never told anyone not to drink. I defy you to find a single statement in any of my posts that does so.
Perhaps you should more thoroughly examine yourself and your beliefs to determine whether or not you possess puritan-like values. From my limited exposure to your beliefs, it rather looks that way. What's the saying? If it looks like a puritan and sounds like a puritan Or how about, A puritan by any other name would still be as conservative.
Throwing around labels like "puritan" and "conservative" is a substitute for substantive discussion. When you label me a "puritan," I'm supposed to shrink from my position and think, "Ohmigosh! People are gonna think I'm a *gasp!* Puritan! I'd better change my tune!" Hey, call me anything you like, I really couldn't care less.
Ike has made the same suggestion, that TAF and I are ignorant victims of trickle-down puritanism and don't even know how brainwashed we are. But my views, as expressed on this thread, are not derived from religious strictures (I've already said that Jesus hallowed the making of wine at Cana, and I have no problem with the substance per se). My views are derived 100 percent from observation. I am not a prohibitionist, and I am not a teetotaler, but I insist that our culture has a very unhealthy and immature view of drinking. And that's really the long and short of what I'm saying.
When I see people make a big deal about religion, I have the same impression of them that I have of the inquisitors and the crusaders. That can cut both ways my friend.
Twisted analogy. The attitude of an "I'm so cool" smoker and the attitude of an "I'm so cool" drinker are virtually identical. It's about image, it's about appearing grown up and sophisticated in both cases.
But saying that all religious people (such as Mother Teresa) are the equivalent of Torquemada and the other Inquisitors is not just silly, its libelous. Let's stay within the realm of reason and reality, shall we?
Impressions don't mean squat. Get to know the people before you start spewing accusations of alcoholism.
I have specifically said that I am not accusing anyone of anything. In a previous post, I have specifically and pointedly said I am not acusing you of anything, much less of alcoholism. What part of that do you not understand?
You seem to be offended by things I have never said.
That's what Republicanism is all about isn't it? (I'm making the assumption that you're a republican based off of your highly conservative social statements) Small government and power to the people, right?
(Is that a snap judgment?
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
And you want to bring politics into this? I haven't and I won't. This discussion has been touchy enough without going there.
you have no right to condemn others
I don't condemn anybody.
snap judgements are unfounded.
I haven't made snap judgments. I have been talking very specifically about cultural attitudes, not individuals. I have been dealing in principles, not personalities.
Learn to have fun. Don't be so preachy. And for the love of God, don't be afraid of losing control once in a while. It can be very liberating. And always remember, no one likes a control freak.
Why are you preaching to me?
(My friends who know me would think that what you said there is really hilarious.)
If I wanted your opinion, I'd give it to you
On a forum, folks are entitled to give opinions and even jump up on the soapbox for a while. That's what a forum is all about. 'Least, that's how I see it.
why don't you just lighten up and stop raining on everyone's parade.
C-ya.
--wiz
[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited March 29, 2000).]
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong Vagabond but...
Don't get me wrong. I love discussing peoples' beliefs, especially ones that are different from my own. But when people tell me that I'm wrong because my beliefs are different, then my response quickly turns hostile. Some of you here can already attest to this.
It seems you are saying you like discussing others' beliefs as long as they don't disagree with you.
------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi
Conor,
...It seems you are saying you like discussing others' beliefs as long as they don't disagree with you...
No, what I'm saying is that I love discussing other peoples' beliefs; I like to have them explain them to me and I like to explain mine to them. If one of us gets something from the discussion, then great; if not, that's fine too.
But, if during the course of the discussion someone starts trying to convert me, and starts telling me that I should change my beliefs, and that if I don't I'm wrong, well that just pisses me off.
Does this clarify my statement for you?
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
hi, I am in happy Star Wars land. lalalal. I come here to relax and talk about star wars. lalalala. not to talk about alcoholism. alalala. i do that in the real world. so, my buddy R2D2 and I would like to talk to you about STAR WARS. If it statistics on alcoholism and religion ou seek, take my friend R2D2 and talk to him, he isn't supposed to be here either(on account of being a droid and all) so have a nice day
mabye C-3P0 wants to convert. Go find him. bye!!!!!
That was random....
------------------
"Will you write it down so I don't have to pay attention?"-Timothy Yang Yuen Cheng
It clarified it, but I still disagree rather strongly.
Whether you think you are or not, you just tried to convert me. You basically said that if I try to tell you that you are wrong, then I am wrong for doing so (If you don't think I am wrong it wouldn't make you angry). So you are saying I shouldn't try to convert you, in essence saying I am wrong in doing what I do, and should change.
I happen to believe telling people their beliefs/opinions are wrong/unfounded/untenable is very right and should be encouraged. You obviously think I should change, that I am wrong in my beliefs, and are violating your own precepts.
I await your response.
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)
------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi
Conor,
...You basically said that if I try to tell you that you are wrong, then I am wrong for doing so...
What I'm saying is by attempting to force your beliefs on an unwilling person, you are being inconsiderate to that person. If you'll notice, I've never told anyone that their beliefs during this alcoholism discussion were wrong. I've consistently said that if they don't enjoy alcohol, then by all means they shouldn't drink it. I respect their point of view and their wishes, and I expect the same respect - not to be lectured and preached to.
All I'm saying is that there need to be a protocol, a mature set of rules that people follow when having a heated discussion or debate like this. Regardless of our different opinions, common courtesy should be given to all. And that includes not telling people they are wrong if their opinion just happens to be different from your own.
Because who are you? You're Human. For you to tell someone they are wrong, means you could just as likely be wrong as well. And then you get into this childish back-and-forth name calling contest about who's right and who's wrong, and then the intellectual dialogue is lost.
We just need to present our points of view, explain why we feel the way we do, and then leave it at that. Maybe one or both of us will gain something from the discussion as long as we follow this open, and respectful protocol. And like I said before, if we still hold our initial beliefs after this discussion, then so be it. Calling each other wrong isn't going to suddenly make one of us change our beliefs; if anything it will only entrench us more.
Does any of this make sense to you Connor?
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
I see how you feel, although I still have no idea why it offends you when people tell you that you're wrong. I'm glad when people care enough to point out when I am mistaken or outright wrong about things.
Another thing I disagree with, is the idea that I am just as likely to be wrong. Not all beliefs are equal. I could be wrong in a number of things I believe, yet the likelyhood is very low.
You proclaimed one of my pet peeves loudly. You said I or others were trying to force our beliefs onto you. Nonsense and Balderdash. Anyone that tries to convince another person they are right, by extentsion in every circumstance is saying the other person should believe as the arguing party does, by the simple fact that it is right to be right and wrong to be wrong. I ask you, how is saying that you should do something forcing you to do that thing? You can always ignore it.
In every discussion in the history of the human race, each side has proclaimed truth, or else there would be nothing to discuss, no point or counter-point. In this discussion right now, you are trying to convince me and others that to say that you are wrong about something is to do something inherently (in your eyes) wrong. I could just as easily say that you are trying to force your beliefs on me (It would still be nonsense, but by your logic I could) because you are finding fault with my beliefs and saying I should not do something.
------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi
Conor,
...Another thing I disagree with, is the idea that I am just as likely to be wrong...
You don't know how arrogant and pompous that sounds. I interpret that as you basically saying that you're perfect and infallible, which is nonsense because no one can be absolutely right about everything.
...You said I or others were trying to force our beliefs onto you. Nonsense and Balderdash...
Then explain to me why TAF and Wiz would interrupt what is obviously a light-hearted thread and start lecturing us on the evils of alcoholism? The implication was clear to me; they were trying to get us to give up our evil ways, as they see it, despite the fact that they knew nothing about us. If this thread were titled, "What do you think about alcoholism?", that would be one thing. But to intrude into a fluff thread such as this and begin preaching - I take offense to that. Christ, is no thread safe for light-hearted discussion? Look out, here come the fun-killers to rain on our parade and preach to us again!
...how is saying that you should do something forcing you to do that thing...
I never said that saying I should do a thing would force me to do that thing. I said I don't like it when people attempt to force their beliefs on me. It's arrogant, inconsiderate, and it pisses me of. People should practice common courtesy; have some social awareness; realize that how what you say and how you say it will affect other peoples' reaction toward you. Acting like a pompous fool isn't the way to get converts.
...I could just as easily say that you are trying to force your beliefs on me because you are finding fault with my beliefs and saying I should not do something...
I'm not trying to change your beliefs at all. What I'm asking you to do is to change your behavior when it comes to the mechanics of how we carry out a debate. You can still belief whatever the hell you want; I honestly don't care. I don't even care if you don't agree with my ideas on how debates should be carried out. But if you can't honor my simple request for courtesy as I've explained here, then it seems that we don't even have a common basis upon which to carry out an intelligent debate.
And remember, just because you believe something strongly does not give you an excuse to thrust that opinion on everyone else. If you practice some social awareness, you'll realize that you're actually being counter-productive to your cause when you behave in such a manner.
The sharing of beliefs in a respectful manner - that's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in lecturing people nor being lectured. Nor am I interested in labeling people as being wrong or being labeled as wrong myself. That's for each of us to decide for ourselves.
Conor, I've explained my position clearly to you now, and I'm tiring of re-explaining it. To summarize, I hope you can honor my request so that we can engage in future debates. If you can't though, that's fine too; we just won't debate anything.
Take it easy.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Conor, Vagabond--
I absolutely agree with Conor.
Vagabond, you repeatedly told me how wrong I was in previous posts. It seems you want the right to say others are wrong, but no one can disagree with you.
Look, the very core assumption of any debate is that one side is right, the other is wrong. Take a political debate. Each side vigorously and unabashedly tries to portray itself right and the other side wrong.
Or take a debate between a Creationist and an Evolutionist--these debates take place on college campuses all the time. Both sides can't be right--one must be right and the other wrong. It is absurd to say that both are equally valid. So both sides present their best evidence and their best arguments, and it is accepted by each side that the other side will do its best prove its case true and the other side false. No one thinks it unfair or uncivilized.
Vagabond, you say:
What I'm saying is by attempting to force your beliefs on an unwilling person, you are being inconsiderate to that person.
I can't force my beliefs on you without tying you down, putting tape over your mouth and bamboo shoots under your fingernails and torturing you into screaming, "Yes, you're right!" To say, "I believe I'm right (or even, I believe you're wrong) and here's the evidence to back up what I say," that's not forcing anything on you. That's free expression, which is not only guaranteed by the first amendment, but it is time honored practice in internet forums.
To say you're wrong is not to disrespect you. It is not to lecture or preach to you. It is simply to disagree with you, and to express oneself. There is nothing wrong with people getting on these forums and trying to persuade others to their own points of view. That's what these forums are here for.
You talk about having "a protocol, a mature set of rules that people follow when having a heated discussion or debate like this." I think maturity is nothing more than the ability to accept the give and take, the exchange of ideas, being told "You're wrong and here's why" without getting (your word) "pissed." That's maturity.
People tell me I'm wrong on these forums all the time. You've told me so many times yourself. I don't get "pissed" about it. I either respond with arguments of my own--
Or sometimes I learn from it and change my mind. I welcome the prospect of learning and growing and changing from these discussions. I wish you would welcome that prospect as well.
--wiz
[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited March 30, 2000).]
Vagabond-
What is your problem man? You sit around and pick sentences out of context and take monstrous offense. You wonder why I started all this, why I was the first to be offended that you people would start such a discussion? Alcohol has proven unquestionably to have an extremely negative impact on humanity. Your "lighthearted" mood, your "fun", is being read by people of all ages, CHILDREN, when they visit this forum. Had I never said anything, would anyone else reading this know you supposedly drink in total moderation, never once have EVER been drunk? No, you'd rather pin me down as a puritan nutcase who's never done anything fun and who is intollerant of anyone who drinks alcohol. You could sit in a locked room and drink till you exploded for all I care now, but why bring others down with you, why sit here and act like alcohol is no big deal and it will never be anything more than fun to you because you are too good to let it overcome you?
Do you feel that you have complete control of your alcoholic intake? Sure you do, nearly everyone who drinks, alcoholic or not, thinks this. All I say is WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE that what you are doing won't harm you, won't harm people around you, won't end up killing someone even just after 1 beer? This discussion, mostly because of my persistence, has lead to all the drinkers here to admit to this - that this substance affects you, and you drink it because of this. Now, the affect it has with misuse is astronomical, and I pity you if you're at this level and you still defend your position. Suppose you are what you say you are, though, and drink in COMPLETE moderation. Fine, take the risk of forming an addiction to a substance that you obviously go at great lengths to defend, that once you form the addiction your life may be ruined and you will not be able to turn it around because you hold the views you hold now. With that in thought, even if you drink 1 beer a month, go get medical approval. Next time you visit your doctor, ask him/her what they recommend, as learned specialists on the human body. I don't need to do this because I take the easy way out and don't use alcohol at all, but when you take this serious, adult matter as an argument where we are the puritan crusaders come to ruin your fun it destroys all sense of respect I have for your judgement and character and I think you need to seek medical advice. Simple as that. When you come back here and say your doctor believes we are no better than you for abstaining from alcohol then I'll keep my mouth shut. BUT, if your doctor tells you that it would be better for your health and mental stability to not drink at all, I think at that point you MUST admit this is no longer a matter of opinion, and we have every right to press you on not drinking. Until then, you can say what you like, but please don't think more highly of yourself when in our eyes all we are doing is trying to help you.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
Alcohol has proven unquestionably to have an extremely negative impact on humanity. Correction: Alcoholism has proven unquestionable to have an extremely negative impact on humanity.
Do NOT mix up the two or interchange them.
Blah blah blah blah blah! I feel like I'm speaking with space aliens (that is if you believe they exist). This so-called discussion is over for me. Have fun wallowing in your infinite arguments...
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
(I need to watch those typos.. lol)
LoL, even these "drinking game" posts degenerate eventually into hearty debate. I guess it's in some of our "natures" to want to argue.
See what alcohol does? And some folks want to legalize ALL recreational drugs.. what are they thinking?!
Vagabond, are you tempting those "religious zealouts" again? Yes, the bible doesn't say anything about not drinking alcohol. Although it does condemn "drunkenness" and "drunkards." But in moderation, nothing wrong with a little wine. Now if you're a Muslim, that's a whole different story!
And I think there is a cultural connection here. Drinking in the US seems to be viewed as something bad, and "Europe" seems to view it as something good. How about Russia? Or, since we keep mentioning good ol' JC and his buds, the Middle East? I don't drink, not because I think I might become an alcoholic, but because:
1) Saves money.
2) Taste isn't anything special. Hey, I don't drink coffee either for this reason.
3) I figure that way I won't have to hang around people who DO drink to excess or worry about them begging to me to share a cold one with them. ; )
you could probably apply those same reasons to my choice not to smoke, although I'd add lung cancer in there too.
If we want to be political, here's one question I have: why is it that certain, shall we say "political minded folks" insist that we BAN alcohol and cigarettes, yet, those same people are often the biggest proponents of legalization of (or as they call it "ending prohibition") other recreational drugs, like marijiuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. Last I checked alcohol and tobacco had "medicinal" uses as well. And like guns, aren't they "morally neutral substances" until somebody takes them and abuses or uses them to excess or in the wrong situation? What are these people thinking?! I think it all goes back to who gets the money from what special interest group that makes them say such contradictory things. Either that or they are just confused or misinformed.
Fact: make anything illegal that was legal before, and you'll have more crime. Why? Because at least SOME of the people who were used to doing it before will continue to, breaking the law, even if it's a tiny number.
Fact: If you legalize something that was once illegal, you're going to have more people doing it legally than were doing it illegally before. Why? Because fear of the consequences of the law DOES deter some people (however small the number may be) from doing it anyway. Legalization then allows these people to try it ("it's legal, we've got nothing to lose.."). This would apply to nearly everything (maybe not full frontal lobotomies in your backyard, but for most things..).
Fact: Criminalize something, and you'll have to spend more money stopping crimes committed as a result of the new law(s).
Fact: Legalize something and you have to deal with the consequences of more widespread use of the legalized product or service. Not everyone is responsible enough to use it properly and in the proper context. Keep in mind there's virtually no way to guarentee kids won't get their hands on it from irresponsible parents. And even if you could restrict something to only adults, there's always the possibility of theft.
Took me awhile to get through this loooong debate, which I initially ignored because this kind of post is not a rarity on these message boards. This one suprised me, because there were actual chairs being thrown. I even saw on guy swinging from the chandelier! (he was unharmed when he was thrown to the ground seconds later by a burly bubbling gorilla).
One thing I will say: getting drunk once doesn't make you an automatic alcoholic.
Alcohol can still cause harm. Think of this: a person, who is NOT an alcoholic, gets together with his buddies, celebrating his 21st birthday, let's say. They say "have another one, you've earned it!" and such, and such until he's totally wasted. So are they, so none of them gets a designated driver, and they all get in the van and go out on the open road. The kid is driving and he passes out at the wheel. They crash and all are killed. Now not one of them in that hypothetical situation (which I would be willing to bet has actually happened more than once in the history of the world), was an alcoholic, and they were all just having a "good time" and they were consenting adults.
Now I am not saying we should ban alcohol, we should just not be so hypocritical in our attitudes and so angry about people simply because they dare to disagree with our heartfelt opinions.
I'm amazed that I seemed to detect Vagabond and TAF actually get MAD in this thread. I don't recall anyone getting that pissed outright in any of the other discussions (even the God Thread). I guess because while not everyone believes there's a God, alot more people puff a cig or chug a beer now and then.
Kurgan
[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 03, 2000).]
every one! I drink to get drunk and im proud of it. Im sure when some one created the first alcoholic drink it wasnt for the taste it was for the intoxication. Because in truth most alcohol tastes like sh!t.
How about this: If alcohol, when in moderation, is not a bad thing, then who here would go for a ban on hard liquor? Makes sense to me.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
Not a chance. A ban on something as completely ingrained in human civilization as alcohol would simply not work (and hasn't if I am right about what happened during prohibition).
People would not accept it, the law would not be honoured. Even if it was a good thing, and I'm not convinced it is. Myself, I plan on drinking some red wine every once in a while, whether I like it or not. It is supposed to loosen up the arteries and help the heart, and I could use all the help I can get.
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)
------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi
You missed my point, I said hard liquor. I'm talking about the stuff that is made for the sole purpose of getting you drunk - fast. I really don't see how alcohol is different than any of the other drugs I am sure most of you are against. Tobacco has slowly been making its way out of our society. They may not ban it, but prices will continue to rise until people who are too ignorant to follow the law must do so anyway because the stuff is so expensive. I've been attacked the whole time here, but I still haven't received some of the answers I was asking for. When in moderation, what differentiates alcohol from any other harmful drug? Should everything be legalized, with the American population having complete trust in each other over using any drug in moderation? I am pretty sure where most everyone here draws the line, but maybe if you try to tell me you will figure out I'm not the only one that is supposedly a hypocrite.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
Oh, another thing, about prohibition.
Sure, there was alot of alcohol related crime during that period, etc. Today you don't have that as it was then, but you have other "drug" related crime. The argument is that if you legalized all those drugs, if people want to do it, fine, even though they're shooting themselves in the foot. The main point of the argument is, to reduce crime. But it's kind of silly when you think about it.. yeah, legalize EVERYTHING and you eliminate all crime! Wee! Think about it.
You can use the same logic to legalize ANYTHING, from suicide, murder, prostitution, infanticide, arson, to whatever you want.
The biggest problem with the whole "war on drugs" is that we're basically hypocrites. We allow tobacco and alcohol, which do as much damage, if not more damage than some of the drugs we are "fighting against." That's not the whole story though. We also have, in the past, allowed illegal drugs to enter the country, under whatever pretenses (free trade, diplomacy, political favors, experiments, corporate oversights, you name it), and we have also in the past supported known drug lords, who happened to be pro-USA (a shame we pick such corrupt allies at times).
The thing is, during prohibition, despite all the negative propaganda from the liquor-drinkers and such, we had some of the lowest rates of alcoholism in history. Why? Because most law-abiding citizens didn't get their liquor-fix, so they just went without.
Pro-liquor folks need to just admit to themselves: you enjoy the buzz you get from drinking, and/or the way in which your social circle accepts you when you drink. Yeah, it's about freedom to live your life how you want to, but let's not pretend this is some transcendental thing that the demons of prohibition want to take away from you.
Not saying the prohibitionists are right either, just pointing out that they aren't simply "wrong" "just because."
Kurgan
Well, the baseline is, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with alcohol, as I do with tobacco and an assortment of other drugs.
Is there any evidence at all that infrequent drinks or drinking in small amounts has any adverse effects whatsoever?
------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi
Kurgan:
Very, very well put. I agreed with nearly all of it.
Conor:
"Is there any evidence at all that infrequent drinks or drinking in small amounts has any adverse effects whatsoever?" Well, I think of it this way - if you don't start, what harm could it do you, so why even drink in moderation? Would a slight sniff of paint once a week do any noticeable harm? Probably not, but why in the world do it in the first place? This is where it all ties together, where we hit the base of the argument that Kurgan presented. When you are drinking you are doing it to please yourself, and nothing else. THIS PLEASURE MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ONLY BAD WHEN ABUSED, BUT BAD BEFORE THE ABUSE BEGINS! Everyone here agrees that alcoholism is a bad thing, but the first step to alcoholism is that first drink. My position is that this substance has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it forms an addiction in some users, and it is impossible to predict who will become an alcoholic and who will remain a moderate drinker.
Absolutely nobody needs to drink alcohol. I refuse to accept that the taste has anything to do with what drinkers are defending here. There are billions of other tastes out there, and the alcohol is put into beer/wine/etc. for one purpose - to retard the brain. Sure, a little alcohol won't do that much to you, but then why are you using it?
From looking at the affects alcohol has had on so many human lives, I again advise anyone who drinks to ask a doctor if the level of your alcohol intake is too high, ask a doctor if you stand any chance of forming an addiction, and ask yourself if it is really worth it. Many, if not all of the people here seem to have the correct attitude on alcohol (some call it respect, but I really do prefer not to use that word). In some cases attitude isn't enough when dealing with substances like this.
Now, before I am attacked again, I'll defend MY actions. This whole argument is on substance use and substance abuse. ANY substance can be used and not abused, whether it be sugar, alcohol, marijuana, or platonium. Using all of these in moderation and under the correct conditions I see no harm can be done. I eat candy. Is that bad? Actually, it would do me better if I didn't do it, and I admit that. But relative to alcohol candy does me little harm, and I am very healthy and am positive eating things that taste good every now and then won't hurt me. I will know when they do, however, because I'll be overweight or my blood pressure will be too high. I think this is different from alcohol in that alcoholism can sometimes be entirely mental. A person may look healthy, not gain weight from drinking, have a healthy liver, but may still have the mental addiction that won't be noticed until someone is hurt. Does that make sense?
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
I came across this article today in The Sacramento Bee newspaper; it illustrates exactly what I've been talking about regarding dysfunctional American attitudes toward drinking--the attitude that drinking is a "rite of passage" into manhood and adulthood. This attitude toward drinking kills people...
[The boldface emphasis in the article was added by me.]
--wiz
================================================== ========
"21 For 21" Kills UC Davis Senior
By Terri Hardy
The Sacramento Bee
April 6, 2000
Like many students across the nation, UC Davis senior David Thornton celebrated his 21st birthday by consuming 21 drinks.
It's called "21 for 21."
For Thornton, whose parents live in Fresno County, 11/2 hours of binge drinking, combined with drug use, proved fatal, officials said. Less than an hour after the last drink, he choked on his vomit, stopped breathing and died at Sutter Davis Hospital early Tuesday.
"It's a typical rite of passage among students," said Davis police Lt. Don Brooks. "You drink 21 drinks as fast as you can."
Thornton's father, Rod, called the death "a tragic mistake." Torn between grief and anger, he said the grim facts of his son's death belie the richness of his life.
"He was not a party person. He was hard-working," Rod Thornton said Wednesday. "Not many kids have that kind of academic background."
David Thornton was a former valedictorian at Clovis West High School who carried a 3.36 grade-point average in college and volunteered for the National Ski Patrol.
"You don't do that if you're out partying every night," Rod Thornton said.
His son, a senior studying biological sciences with aspirations of attending law school, should have made better decisions when he went with a group of friends to a downtown Davis bar Monday night, Rod Thornton said.
Still, he believes a culture that accepts, even encourages, such binge drinking was a motivating factor in his son's actions.
Public health experts who focus on college students agree Thornton's ill-advised birthday ritual is being practiced across the country.
"It's been around for years," said Jim Rothenberger, chairman of the American College Health Association's Alcohol Task Force and a public health professor at the University of Minnesota. "It's a potentially fatal practice for anyone, unless they weigh over 400 pounds."
University of California, Davis, officials said that before this week, they didn't think the national fad posed a local threat.
"We believed it was not a tradition that had a great deal of prominence, but as we asked more questions, we became more aware of the practice," said Carol Wall, UC Davis' vice chancellor of student affairs.
Efforts to educate students on drinking will now include warnings on "21 for 21," Wall said.
================================================== ========
If you're going to cite absurd behavior as justification for banning alcohol, then why not cite the 1000 lb. fool who ate himself to death as justification for banning food?
To me, this is merely an example of natural selection at work.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Vagabond--
1. I have never advocated banning alcohol.
2. My only point in quoting this story, the one point I've repeatedly stated and which you never seem to grasp, is that we have a sick, dysfunctional attitude toward alcohol in this country.
3. While this is "absurd" behavior as you state, it is not rare behavior. As the article notes, "21 for 21" is a widespread, epidemic, nationwide fad, engendered by the very attitude I've been talking about, the idea that drinking is a rite of passage to manhood/adulthood.
4. Is it really natural selection at work when the victim is a former valedictorian with a 3.36 university grade-point average? I hardly think so. This young man was not suicidally stupid; he got caught up in a cultural mindset that destroyed him. I see it as a symptom of something much more sick and insidious in our culture.
Btw, I don't mind you responding to what I post. I am continually baffled, however, that you keep responding to things I never said.
--wiz
wiz,
My mistake, it was TAF who was advocating prohibition.
Anyway, back to this valedictorian that drank himself to death. One thing I've noticed in life is that a significant portion of people with a high level of book smarts, tend to be deficient in common sense. Let's face it, it doesn't take genius to reach the brilliant conclusion that drinking 21 drinks as fast as you can will likely lead to your own demise. He may not have been suicidally stupid, but he was stupid nonetheless. Like I said, I believe this is a classic example of natural selection in an urban environment. You apparently have a different belief, and so here we are
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited April 06, 2000).]
taf, I have to say that your last post really made me sick. Your whole attitude that this substance that is only used for personal pleasure is a bad thing made me want to puke.
You really show your ignorance of alcohol.
Actually, Vagabond, I agree with you on the book smarts/common sense distinction. Good point.
--wiz
[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 06, 2000).]
wiz, thanks.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
Roughly one in eight American adult drinkers is alcoholic or experiences problems due to the use of alcohol. The cost to society is estimated at in excess of $166 billion each year.
Alcohol is a key factor in 68% of manslaughters, 62% of assaults, 54% of murders and attempted murders, 48% of robberies, and 44% of burglaries.
I make myself sick too, Ikhnaton. Now listen to me, and PLEASE stop treating me as someone who doesn't even have the right to tell you why I feel this way. Every solid point I have made, every question I have asked the drinkers to answer, has been left untouched with a measly response like "You make me want to puke." Fine, you simply can't stand me, and I can't help that. I say the things I do because I care for your situation, and if you cared for mine you would do more than refuse answers to my questions and disrespect my opinion without backing up yours. I hardly have the time to keep defending myself here, but now it seems I am defending someone else entirely. Will everyone please stop pinning things on me and taking offense at things I don't even say?
Vagabond says "My mistake, it was TAF who was advocating prohibition." What in the world?!? The second Wiz the Prohibitionist declares for the 10th. time he doesn't want a ban on alcohol somebody else needs to be the unlucky target? I can't see how I could possibly make my point any clearer, but I will go ahead and take another hour out of my day to express this to you.
http://www.health.org/pubs/catalog/RP0s.htm#Alco)
That is a website. As we all know by now alcohol is a drug, and should be treated as such. Read the affects of abuse AS WELL AS mild, moderate use.
http://www.health.org/pubs/qdocs/alcohol/bac-chrt.htm)
Another website, more informative than the last. For men, IMPAIRMENT begins with one drink. If you don't know what that means:
impair(v)-to make worse, less, weaker; damage, reduce.
Impairment on any level has shown to have disadvantages, so it can be said drinking on any level has disadvantages, which is a totally truthful statement.
http://www.health.org/pubs/qdocs/alcohol/teenalc1.htm)
A good article with many points, of which I will qualify.
"Information from the 1998 NHSDA shows that the level of alcohol use is strongly associated with illicit drug and cigarette use...53% of current alcohol users also smoked cigarettes as did 71% of binge alcohol users and 77% of heavy alcohol users"
"People who begin drinking before age 15 are four times as likely to develop alcohol dependence and more than twice as likely to develop alcohol abuse than those who delay drinking until age 21 (Grant and Dawson 1997)."
The article goes on and on, explaining the vast number of drinkers UNDER LEGAL AGE who drink alcohol. Under parental supervision or not, alcohol consumption is ILLEGAL until the age of 21.
No Vagabond, I do not wish a ban on alcohol. That, after seeing the affect I had on drinkers for just expressing my dislike for the substance, has shown me how much some of you praise this substance. I wish that everyone would make the realization of what this substance has done to humanity, and make the conscious decision, to CHOOSE not to drink. I can't force this on you, but when drinkers openly express their disgust for my opinion and their understanding that I am an ignorant fool, then what am I to do but abstain from expressing my opinion? Well, I never get my feelings hurt, so keep up the disrespect and I will keep telling you what I feel.
Now, again, why I feel this substance is bad. As of yet I still haven't heard an answer to a question I have asked repeatedly - What differentiates alcholic moderation from moderation of "worse" drugs? As seen from one of my above quotes, drinkers also smoke cigarettes. The also have a higher percentage of other drug use. Now, answer this for me, please. Why is it correct for the government to declare some drugs illegal under your train of thought? I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I want, just as long as it doesn't get out of hand. YOU TELL ME how I can know your drinking is and will always be under control, so I don't have to worry that you are living an unhealthy lifestyle or will kill someone under impairment.
I presented a valid proposition earlier. I asked what would be wrong in banning HARD LIQUOR, the kind with a high alcohol percentage meant for the sole purpose of getting drunk. If you don't drink for that reason then what is the problem? I don't think I was out of line for asking everyone's opinion on that.
So what is my position, you are asking. Here is another website, with the positive health affects alcohol has.
http://www.health.org/pubs/qdocs/alcohol/alcohol45.htm)
This website goes into many details on why MODERATE drinkers may have reduced risk of heart disease. Now, I argue that one could just as easily seek a prescription that would be less expensive, have no risk of forming a fatal addiction, and do just the same for heart disease, but nothing is stopping you from drinking. But the article also says:
"The apparent benefits of moderate drinking on CHD mortality are offset at higher drinking levels by increasing risk of death from other types of heart disease (5,16,32); cancer; liver cirrhosis; and trauma, including trauma from traffic crashes (47). Moderate drinking is not risk free. The trade-offs between risks and benefits can be exemplified by the fact that alcohol's anticlotting ability, potentially protective against heart attack, may increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, or bleeding within the brain (12)."
So, like always, alcohol is a tradeoff. I have admitted this all along. You drink it for personal satisfaction, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. IN MY OPINION, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages, but that is my opinion and I recognize it may be flawed. As I have said repeatedly, which has made many people wish to puke, I advise you to see a doctor about your drinking. That is all I ask, all I wish of you. Is that not totally innocent? In all likelihood both perspectives we argue are flawed, but for anyone who drinks what harm could it do to seek medical advice outside of what you believe yourself, have read, or have heard from me?
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn
TAF,
I do not wish a ban on alcohol. That, after seeing the affect I had on drinkers for just expressing my dislike for the substance, has shown me how much some of you praise this substance...
I don't praise alcohol. I praise my freedom, and don't like people telling me what to do or how to live my life.
What you are observing is a manifestation of me fighting for my individual liberty. If I want to drink an occasional alcoholic beverage, then I will fight for that option. I would be just as vocal over my right to watch porn, burn the American flag in protest, for a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy, or for a terminally ill person to terminate his or her own life.
So long as what I do doesn't harm anyone else, then what I do is my business. I'm all about freedom and choices, and I will fight viciously to preserve these freedoms if necessary.
P.S. I do not want to enter a debate on flag burning, porn, etc.
------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...
taf, i never stated that i couldn't stand you, but your whole position on this just shows a narrow mindset and ignorance of anything other than stats. Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics. I'm not saying you're a liar.
Hard liquor is NOT for the sole purpose of getting drunk fast. People who pound shots, yes, but those who drink sex on the beach, or rum and coke or whatever is a totally different story.
ever read warnings on the back of certain cold medicines? They warn about drowsiness and other possible impairments. should they be banned too? I mean, you're only taking it to relieve symptoms so that you feel better. Isn't that selfish? Why not suffer?
The fact is, if you say that drinking is always wrong for the reasons you do, you have to condemn a lot of other things.
If, by your drinking, you seriously damage your health, or cause any kind of injury (physical or mental) to someone else, then that is bad. But just to drink in moderation is NOT BAD!! If it was bad, then Jesus was a sinner. But since I don't know whether you believe Jesus was God or not, I don't think that carries any weight with you. But since I still consider you, in my mind, as being an agnostic, why would you be concerned about a "vice" such as selfishness? What merit do you see in being unselfish?
Just as there is nothing wrong with eating food that tastes good, or eating candy, or taking medicine to make you feel better, there is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation. If you think all drinking is bad, try to convince my 83 year old grandmother's doctor of that. She has been prescribed 2 highballs a day (those contain hard liquor which you want to ban). Would you deprive my grandmother of her medicine?
Just an observation:
It seems to me that TheAhnFahn has taken the high road of factual discussion, backed up by data. Vagabond, too, expressed himself admirably, clarifying the real source of his feelings in the matter.
I'm troubled that Ike resorts to ad hominem attacks of this sort:
taf, I have to say that your last post really made me sick. Your whole attitude that this substance that is only used for personal pleasure is a bad thing made me want to puke.
You really show your ignorance of alcohol.
I also think it unwise to widen the war into the realm of religion (I should talk, right?
http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)
Ike-- You do have me intrigued. What conceivable medical condition is treatable with a coupla highballs a day? Sounds like placebo therapy to me, but if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.
--wiz
I don't know my grandmother's medical history, I just know that she said the doctor told her to have 2 highballs a day. Are you going to argue with a doctor?
btw, wiz, I didn't attack his person in any way except to say that he is showing his ignorance of alcohol. I said that his arguments and his position make me sick. I've been reading this thread a lot and posting a lot less, but most of ahnfahn's arguments just upset me.
The fact that TheAhnFahn doesn't drink doesn't make him ignorant. In fact, the information he presents gives me the impression that he is extremely well versed in the subject. At the very least, he's done his homework.
A person doesn't have to have been to Jupiter to be a very knowledgeable astronomer. A person doesn't have to be a drug addict, or even a one-time user, to be an authority on addiction.
You certainly have every right to disagree with TAF, but the term "ignorant" seems wildly inappropriate, from where I'm sitting.
And the intense expressions of disgust (puke, etc.) bothered me a lot.
--wiz
Just as there is nothing wrong with eating food that tastes good, or eating candy, or taking medicine to make you feel better, there is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation. If you think all drinking is bad, try to convince my 83 year old grandmother's doctor of that. She has been prescribed 2 highballs a day (those contain hard liquor which you want to ban). Would you deprive my grandmother of her medicine?
Ok, let me just add to my last post. Ikhnaton and Vagabond and everybody else - I don't think ALL DRINKING is bad. This has been my indirect point all along, but I guess you have missed it. But in this manner, any and all substances, when used in moderation, are not bad. Don't you see this? Nobody has answered my question yet, why we would outlaw some drugs and not others. My stance is that ALL substances should be treated with respect, and you obviously treat alcohol in this manner. But respect isn't always enough! You keep going back to the argument about candy. Let us just say we compare drinks, root beer to alcoholic beer. It would take months of soft drink abuse to have an affect on your health, and I argue it would never affect your mental judgements. But two drinks of alcohol and there is no argument that something COULD happen. I'm not saying it ever will, but you run a FAR greater risk.
Your grandmother serves my argument more than yours. She was PRESCRIBED two highballs a day. A ban on hard liquor would only stop easy access to abusers of this substance, whereas your grandmother could still go to her local pharmacy and pick up her prescription under medical supervision. Again, all I am asking is to have respect for the substance (which you do), NEVER abuse it, and do not simply rely on your judgement on the level and frequency of your alcohol intake. Any drug of this sort, a depressant, should always be taken under medical supervision. But when you are also tagging terms to it like "tasty" I fear your judgement may be skewed by other aspects of the substance. If I ever started to like the taste of codeine I wouldn't under any circumstances trust my judgement to use it in moderation as a relaxant. As always, I admit my opinion serves little to you, but don't treat yourself as something greater than a statistic until you go to your doctor and in complete honesty, without sugar-coating anything, tell them exactly your drinking habits and your uses of any other harmful substances (i.e. tobacco, mirajuana, etc.) for personal pleasure.
------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn