If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article >, >> C.H. > wrote: >>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote: >>> >>>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because >>>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink. >> >> You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any >> more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction. > >Being compelled and having a desire are two different things. Please don't >mix these up. #1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_ compelled. #2: In the widest sense -- and that IS how you used the term -- a desire and a feeling of compulsion are the same thing. >> It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to >> drink. > >Nothing wrong with that. Except that you and the other neo-prohibitionists want to make it impractical. >> I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere. > >No, you don't. There are taxicabs, public transportation or carpooling. Thank you, Marie Antoinette. >If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough >money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight. Not a matter of 20 bucks. A matter of no cabs at all. And I rarely spend $20 on alcohol for myself at a sitting. Besides, how am I going to get my car back? |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:03:11 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article >, >> C.H. > wrote: > >>>Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In >>>traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of >>>others, and that is completely unacceptable. >> >> On the contrary. Not only is it acceptable, it is unavoidable. By >> merely being there you increase the risk of others. > >Yes, traffic has a certain basic risk of being killed, which you accept by >participating in it. That does not mean that you have the right to >increase this risk several times just to satisfy your desire to drink. Your argument has no foundation; the principle of not increasing risk cannot stand. >> The principle "anything that increases others' risks should be >> forbidden" cannot stand. > >The principle of 'not unnecessarily' (and consuming alcohol when you have >to drive afterwards is entirely unnecessary) increasing the risk does >stand. Nope. That one doesn't stand either. By that principal, all unnecessary driving would be forbidden. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:03:11 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article >, >> C.H. > wrote: > >>>Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In >>>traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of >>>others, and that is completely unacceptable. >> >> On the contrary. Not only is it acceptable, it is unavoidable. By >> merely being there you increase the risk of others. > >Yes, traffic has a certain basic risk of being killed, which you accept by >participating in it. That does not mean that you have the right to >increase this risk several times just to satisfy your desire to drink. Your argument has no foundation; the principle of not increasing risk cannot stand. >> The principle "anything that increases others' risks should be >> forbidden" cannot stand. > >The principle of 'not unnecessarily' (and consuming alcohol when you have >to drive afterwards is entirely unnecessary) increasing the risk does >stand. Nope. That one doesn't stand either. By that principal, all unnecessary driving would be forbidden. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article >, >> C.H. > wrote: > >>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so. >> >> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up. > >Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are >unsafe both drunk and sober. So you'd prevent someone with a 0.00BAC from driving merely because they are often drunk? Those neo-prohibitionist colors are shining through true and strong. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article >, >> C.H. > wrote: > >>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so. >> >> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up. > >Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are >unsafe both drunk and sober. So you'd prevent someone with a 0.00BAC from driving merely because they are often drunk? Those neo-prohibitionist colors are shining through true and strong. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough >>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight. >> >> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could >> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around.... > >Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you >absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are >either taxicabs or bars in walking distance. There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!". (of course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not really an option). >I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly >restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was >too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much >freedom in a coffin. You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety of your nose. >driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic >fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted. You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep, that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through. >If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a >safe environment, in other words, at home. Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough >>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight. >> >> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could >> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around.... > >Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you >absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are >either taxicabs or bars in walking distance. There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!". (of course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not really an option). >I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly >restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was >too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much >freedom in a coffin. You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety of your nose. >driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic >fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted. You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep, that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through. >If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a >safe environment, in other words, at home. Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:02:52 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if you >>> want half-drunk) drivers. >> >> Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement >> studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent? > >No, just greedy. > >> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies >> are any more valid than the ones done then? > >Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence. ROTFL. Who's coming up with conspiracy theories now, eh? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:02:52 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if you >>> want half-drunk) drivers. >> >> Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement >> studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent? > >No, just greedy. > >> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies >> are any more valid than the ones done then? > >Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence. ROTFL. Who's coming up with conspiracy theories now, eh? |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:16:11 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:14 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:54:52 -0800, "C.H." > >> wrote: >> >>>COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough >>>for you?) >>> >>>If you had any alcohol your ability to assess your driving capabilities >>>decreases to the point of non-existence, >> >> Which is why I always test my driving skills out on a video game >> before I leave the bar. If I get a crappy score, I'll call a cab. > >You really think some playing around with a driving simulator is an >indicator of whether you are capable of driving? You indeed need help. > One of your problems is you can't tell when someone is being facetious. Your type is so easy to wind up. >Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions | FSJ | BMW | 37 | January 16th 05 06:38 PM |
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance | Dave Head | Driving | 25 | December 25th 04 06:07 AM |
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 82 | December 23rd 04 01:10 AM |
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... | Dave Head | Driving | 110 | December 18th 04 02:07 AM |