Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 76 of 136 (263647)
11-27-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
11-27-2005 11:02 PM


Re: ADHD
So, in other words, you're a creationist.
and you're an asshole.
no. scientists trust nature and i trust my own two eyes. i will trust their statistics when i see a test of significance and a test of generalizability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2005 11:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 8:36 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 136 (263649)
11-27-2005 11:39 PM


Let's be polite
crashfrog and brennakimi, let's avoid insults and stick to substance.
Thanks.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 136 (263658)
11-28-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
11-27-2005 3:26 PM


Re: Drink Driving
Being incompetent should be a barrier to getting a license.
Agreed, we should test people before they get a licence.
Demonstrating incompetence, by such things as hitting parked vehicles on slow residential roads, should trigger evaluation of competence.
This kind of incident is very common, in a massive majority of cases it is a one off event, implying a mistake (imperfection) rather than incompetence. I think a better idea would be to allow the police discretionary powers to charge a driver with driving without due care and attention in cases which they feel are the exception to this majority, and then give the courts discretionary powers to give a minor punishment (endorsing a licence (if you have such a thing in the States I do not know), fines, suspension of licence, etc).
The fallacy of popularity?
No. It is simply a fact, and coupled with the idea that in most cases it is a one off event, it seems to indicate that these things are a result of simple one time mistakes.
This just demonstrates a very lax attitude about having competent (and responsible) drivers, not that this is a good thing to occur eh?
You seem to be implying that hitting a parked vehicle has automatically condemned you as being an incompetent and irresponsible driver rather than a imperfect one. A responsible driver stops after an incident, exchanges insurance details and admits liability to their insurer.
btw, do you think that a driver with a record of hitting parked vehicles while sober is likely to be a better driver drunk (or tired or whatever) than a person who hasn't?
A person who has a record of hitting parked vehicles?? This is a different thing than we have been discussing so far. A person with a 'record' implies an incompetent driver (who is probably paying an obscene amount of insurance with an unbelievable excess (or deductable as you might call it), so would (on average) fair worse whilst impaired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 3:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 9:23 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 79 of 136 (263667)
11-28-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2005 5:51 PM


Insurance
I work in insurance, so its weird to be on EvC as an 'expert'. The funny thing is that basically both schraf and you seem to be right here.
Basically certain factors increase your risk. Driving the vehicle to work every day, driving a high powered vehicle, living in a dodgy area, being a construction worker or footballer, being a young driver, being an inexperienced driver, being male, having driving convictions, etc etc etc.
Some of these factors don't increase your risk of having an accident, but the risk is that any accident you do have will cost more (eg being a footballer means injury claims from passengers will be more likely higher). Some are a combination of the two.
Having any accident increases your premiums, but this is basically regardless of the cost of the claim (YMMV, different insurers might do this differently), and generally involves losing things such as 'no claims discount'...this represents you being a higher risk for being involved in a further accident.
As far as citations and tickets, not all of them will increase everyone's insurance. Many minor convictions are ignored for the first offense (eg speeding, minor traffic violations, parking illegally etc).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 5:51 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 8:42 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 136 (263669)
11-28-2005 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Omnivorous
11-27-2005 6:36 PM


Accidents:
As reported in the June issue of Epidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles. Given the fact that men drive an estimated 74 per cent more miles per year than women, the figure is surprising indeed.
Heh - this is getting off topic
Still this confuses me. Why is it suprising that a group which has extra driving experience has fewer accidents? Surely the figure is surprising, but not because men drive more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Omnivorous, posted 11-27-2005 6:36 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 136 (263672)
11-28-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2005 10:57 PM


Re: ADHD
i just happen to look around me instead of trusting statistics.
Heh - its that kind of thing that leads people to believe that black people are stupid, or left handed people prone to domestic violence or other silly things. You can't accept a small sample just because it is the sample you happened to look at unfortunately, the chances are that you do not have a representative sample.
i know the kind of things statistics can be twisted into
Then you know that small sample sizes interpreted subjectively are a great way to twist statistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 10:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 8:49 AM Modulous has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 82 of 136 (263689)
11-28-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Funkaloyd
11-24-2005 9:35 PM


Dont forget that alcohol was also used to make water safer to drink and as a source of callories. link to abstract
There was a time when it was far safer to drink alcoholic beverages (even if they were very watered down)than to drink the water by it's self. It is as deep in western/European culture as you can get. In fact it has shaped the our very nature in the as most Europeans and those who are descended from us have evolved to have a tolerance of alcohol that other isolated ethic groups who didn’t routinely use alcohol to purify water are missing (it is a well documented fact that may Asians lack any meaningful tolerance to alcohol and are ”drunk’ by the end of the first glass. )
It’s not illegal because alcohol is a huge part of who we are and the abuse of it is a regrettable side note to that . ( that and the taxes it generates)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-24-2005 9:35 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 136 (263697)
11-28-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2005 5:37 PM


Re: I found this, though
quote:
no not really. if no more people were drunk then than are drunk now
Can you please demonstrate that this is the case?
It would also be a good idea for us to determine which "then" we are talking about. I'll let you define that, if you like.
quote:
that there are more things to drink than wine,
But people used to ferment everything at home, especially beer, back then, so even though more is available now, one never was without it back then because you made it yourself.
quote:
then it stands to reason that at least some people had increased tolerances.
Also, it is likely, and there is scholarly opinion that a lot of people spent much of the day, every day, drunk.
quote:
further, your use of words like soused demonstrates your normative preferences and that i cannot prove you wrong because you will present every argument to show me that drinking is bad and i'm a heathen. congrats fundie.
Nice try at an ad hominem to try to get out of backing up your claims.
I have never been speaking of anything other than historical fact in our discussion. My using the word "soused" indicates nothing at all about my personal views. I could use the word "intoxicated" or "drunk" from now on if you prefer.
Now come on, why not try to back up the claims you have been stating so confidently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 5:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 8:59 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 136 (263698)
11-28-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2005 11:30 PM


Re: ADHD
quote:
scientists trust nature and i trust my own two eyes.
No, scientists do not "trust nature". They study nature.
Scientists trust the scientific method to help them see nature far, far clearer than "their own two eyes" ever could.
Your own hunches and suppositions and anecdotal evidence are extremely likely to be riddled with personal biases, unwarranted conclusions and assumptions, and logical errors.
That's why the scientific method exists and why it's much better at determining reality that you, or me, or any other individual; I don't have to take your word for things that you believe or think to be true based only upon your tiny, limited, error-prone, bised recollection of your experiences.
And before you throw a hissy fit about me saying you are biased and error-prone, I will state up front that we are ALL error prone and biased by virtue of being human.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-28-2005 08:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 11:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 9:01 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 136 (263699)
11-28-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Modulous
11-28-2005 4:02 AM


Re: Insurance
Hey, do your rates go up if the accident was not your fault at all?
Like, if you were driving along and someone pulls out of a driveway and hits you broadside?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2005 4:02 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 8:50 AM nator has replied
 Message 101 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2005 10:55 AM nator has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 86 of 136 (263701)
11-28-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
11-28-2005 4:47 AM


Re: ADHD
well. seeing as i tend to move every couple years and travel a lot and to very different locations, my sample size is a bit bigger. yes i appreciate your point but it's not applicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2005 4:47 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 8:55 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 87 of 136 (263702)
11-28-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nator
11-28-2005 8:42 AM


Re: Insurance
yep. because you are now prone to not being defensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 8:42 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 8:57 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 88 of 136 (263704)
11-28-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by macaroniandcheese
11-28-2005 8:49 AM


Re: ADHD
quote:
well. seeing as i tend to move every couple years and travel a lot and to very different locations, my sample size is a bit bigger. yes i appreciate your point but it's not applicable.
So, can you please describe your methods for recording your observations, and also the statistical methodology you have used to determine your results?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 8:49 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 9:07 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 136 (263705)
11-28-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by macaroniandcheese
11-28-2005 8:50 AM


Re: Insurance
Maybe. I'll wait to find out what the expert on insurance has to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 8:50 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2005 9:05 AM nator has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 90 of 136 (263707)
11-28-2005 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
11-28-2005 8:27 AM


Re: I found this, though
that there are more things to drink than wine,
But people used to ferment everything at home, especially beer, back then, so even though more is available now, one never was without it back then because you made it yourself.

i mean that there is water and juice and soda etc. context clues, really.
Also, it is likely, and there is scholarly opinion that a lot of people spent much of the day, every day, drunk.
show me a lit review, not just one source that happens to back you up. you're so intent on proving me wrong. i just think the whole thing is funny. i don't care about the history of alcohol, i just care that you seem to think that anyone who drinks more than some preposterous amount -that you have decided upon but won't share- is a damn drunk and a terrible person because of it. i have the choice not to drink; i also have the choice not to get drunk. i don't get drunk; however, i do drink a great deal. but i also have the opinion that you are a very judgemental person who draws conclusions then scurries around to defend them taking great comfort when something ridiculous backs you up.
now, you've been jumping down my throat for two days about shit that doesn't matter and isn't even on topic. i make one side comment and you go nuts about it. get over it. you're a pain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 8:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 9:15 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024