Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 136 (263877)
11-28-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
11-28-2005 2:54 PM


It should only matter that I present cogent arguments that are logically sound and any factual claims I make are backed up with reliable evidence.Don't think I haven't noticed that you continue to ignore the substantive content of my posts and instead engage in your usual childish behavior.
When you are ready to grow up and discuss things like a grown up, let me know.
I agree with what you say here. So why aren't you capable of holding yourself to this same criteria on other topics (namely sexual issues). Indeed this may have well been me writing to you in the other thread.
I realize that this is slightly off topic but I'd like to try something here and now, given this rather direct statement to brenna.
Are you willing to agree that the scientific method is one of the best methods we have for developing theories regarding natural phenomena, including effects of human behavior? And if so, will you do me the favor of holding yourself to the standard you just applied to brenna when discussing such topics with me, admitting when you are no longer using evidence, facts, or logic to support your case and admit when I am?
If not, what worth is your throwing this at brenna?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 11-28-2005 2:54 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 11-29-2005 1:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 136 (263944)
11-28-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
11-28-2005 1:51 AM


incompetence ... it just adds up.
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.
Being common does not excuse it: that is just the fallacy of popularity. Just because it happens a lot it is okay??? Heck spousal abuse is not a problem then.
But in reality, if we're going to talk about commonality of cases, most drivers don't hit parked vehicles that are right in front of them with clear visiblity and good pavement. Otherwise our roads would be impassible, eh?
Reiterate ... this was on a twenty mph road: that's as fast as a bicycle rides. What's the stopping distance on good pavement at that speed?
http://www.edmunds.com/...riving/articles/43810/article.html:
Perception time is the three-quarters of a second it takes for you to realize that you need to brake. Reaction time is the three-quarters of a second it takes to move your foot to the brake pedal.
... At 60 mph, it takes your car another 138 feet to come to a complete stop.
20 mph = 20x5280/60/60 ft/sec = 29.33 fps
so in 1.5 seconds the car has travelled 44.00 ft. (reaction time distance)
... can't find a quick ref for actual stopping (braking distance) from 20 mph, but we can assume a D = kv2 relationship from kinetic energy (inertia) and solve from 60 mph to get
k=138/602=0.038333...
so D20=(0.038333)202=15.333 ft

3 times longer for reaction than actual stopping, but total distance covered is ~60 ft. That's 3 car lengths.
I was parked after an intersection with no parking zones each side of the intersection -- over 100 ft clear distance to see (unless you are following the car in front so closely you cannot see where you are going == do I need to say it? incompetent or irresponsible?)
Safe following distance based on 3 second rule:
What is a Safe Following Distance? (3 Second Rule)
25 m.p.h. 37 ft. per second 111 ft.
for 20 mph that's 29.3 fps x 3 = 88 ft
That leaves you an extra 28 ft to actually stop in if you are a responsible competent driver. Almost enough distance to actually brake 3 different times (for the faint of heart breakers). From 20 mph.
What's the excuse?
We can also talk about engineers with standards for roads, with widths of driving and parking lanes set so that the average idiot doesn't have to tax their brain excessively wondering if they have enough room to get by ...
This guy hit my bumper with a good foot overlap.
What's the excuse?
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.
No, I am really equating {drinking and driving}, and {driving in an unsafe manner} with being irresponsible (and stopping afterwards is only part of responsibility ... you can be responsible before an event, not just after it).
I am also saying that the standards for good driving and for road design takes care of the expected imperfections in control that are involved. And that anything beyond the expected imperfections is due to incompetence - inability to meet the norm of average behavior that the roads are more than adequately designed for.
What's the excuse?
Of course then you have the idiots that waste 44ft of reaction distance by hitting the horn first, so they have to repeat the whole scenario, but that's another level of incompetence (knowing the appropriate reaction).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2005 1:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2005 2:49 AM RAZD has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 108 of 136 (263949)
11-28-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
11-24-2005 8:50 PM


See?
As you can see, mick, even when presumably sober, none of us can stay focused on a topic for more than a very short time indeed.
Alcohol is legal so we'll all eventually go to sleep and do no further harm.
That's my hypothesis, and I'm sticking with it.
Good night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 11-24-2005 8:50 PM mick has not replied

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


Message 109 of 136 (263995)
11-29-2005 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
11-28-2005 9:23 PM


mistakes, they just add up
Being common does not excuse it: that is just the fallacy of popularity. Just because it happens a lot it is okay??? Heck spousal abuse is not a problem then.
Yes RAZD, that was exactly my point, well done for picking up on it, I'm trying to sneak spousal abuse through as socially acceptable. Oh wait, spousal abuse is a deliberate act and not called an accident. I think you'll find my actual point was something about mistakes. It was about incompetence versus imperfection.
What's the excuse?
As I said it depends. It could have been a simple error, your maths is all very nice, all it concludes is that whatever error was made occurred within braking distance, or the error involved increasing the breaking distance (for example if he took 2.5s to look in the mirror and back (including focusing times), he's travelled almost 75 feet, that leaves him with 25feet within which to brake, which can be reduced as appropriate depending on how long he had been on the road when he checked his mirrors).
It could be that he was incompetent. The numbers we'll need are how many miles this driver has driven, how many fault accidents he's been involved in, how many fault accidents he has succesfully avoided? How many parked vehicles as he not hit?
Once we have those kinds of figures, we'll need to discuss what figures would be defined as incompetent. The study reported earlier seems to believe that the average is about 1 accident every 200,000 miles, at an average of 30mph that's an error that leads to an accident once every 6,600 hours. If you drive 4 hours a day (quite a lot) then we are looking at an accident every 4 and a half years.
We could get all six sigma about this and try to estimate how many opportunities to be involved in an accident there were in those 4 and a half years. Six sigma 'perfection' requires no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. If the average driver has about 5 accidents per million miles (and there are plenty of opportunities to have an accident per mile, surely) I think we can tentatively conclude that if six sigma is the standard, then the average driver is not incompetent at all.
No, I am really equating {drinking and driving}, and {driving in an unsafe manner} with being irresponsible (and stopping afterwards is only part of responsibility ... you can be responsible before an event, not just after it).
Well the equation is fairly self-apparant. Driving in an unsafe manner is obviously irresponsible.
I am also saying that the standards for good driving and for road design takes care of the expected imperfections in control that are involved. And that anything beyond the expected imperfections is due to incompetence - inability to meet the norm of average behavior that the roads are more than adequately designed for.
So the standards for good driving and road design are perfect? What are the expected imperfections? You condemn somebody for hitting your parked vehicle of being incompetent despite the fact that almost everybody is involved in a fault accident at some time in their life, and given this person was driving to work, their mileage may well be high. The 'norm of average behaviour' is to be involved in several fault accidents over the course of your life.
With that in mind, how can you call somebody incompetent without considering his accident history?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 9:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2005 7:30 AM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 136 (264040)
11-29-2005 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Modulous
11-29-2005 2:49 AM


Re: mistakes, they just add up
With that in mind, how can you call somebody incompetent without considering his accident history?
Ah, then "Brownie" wasn't incompetent. Glad that is sorted out...
It is simple - he failed to miss a parked car with more than apple opportunity for anyone driving in a responsible manner.
Or do you really think that all drivers are competent enough for the purpose and a constant level of damage to vehicles is a mark of this competence?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2005 2:49 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2005 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 111 of 136 (264065)
11-29-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by RAZD
11-29-2005 7:30 AM


Re: mistakes, they just add up
Ah, then "Brownie" wasn't incompetent. Glad that is sorted out...
First an erroneous comparison to spousal abuse now an erroneous comparison to disaster management.
It is simple - he failed to miss a parked car with more than apple opportunity for anyone driving in a responsible manner
He did fail to miss a parked car...as far as we know he failed to miss one parked car out of 10 million parked cars, that's a pretty good record for not hitting parked cars. If I was looking at the data of parked car related incidents, I would regard this gentleman's car hitting incident to be an outlier, and judge it to be a mistake. An error. Every human on this planet makes errors (except maybe bren), some mistakes make you look dumb, some mistakes end up damaging things (am I an incompetent walker if I lose balance for a moment and knock over a glass, after 15 years of incident free walking?), if you make lots of mistakes it shows you are incompetent.
Or do you really think that all drivers are competent enough for the purpose and a constant level of damage to vehicles is a mark of this competence?
Are you doing this deliberately? Yes, RAZD, of course, I believe that consistently causing damage to other vehicles is a mark of competence because I believe that occasionally making a mistake whilst driving that leads to damage is an expected risk due to human error.
No RAZD. My position is clear.
People make mistakes.
Those mistakes can result in absolutely no damage.
Those mistakes can result in damage to third parties
Making a mistake does not make you incompetent.
You have not been able differentiate between this man having made a mistake and him being an incompetent driver. My previous posts set up possible ways we can start to make this distinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2005 7:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2005 6:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 136 (264139)
11-29-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
11-28-2005 6:30 PM


quote:
I agree with what you say here. So why aren't you capable of holding yourself to this same criteria on other topics (namely sexual issues). Indeed this may have well been me writing to you in the other thread.
Even experts can disagree, holmes, and neither you nor I are experts.
Of course, I may be blind, or ruled by bias or emotion or a biologically- or culturally-based aversion to certain concepts in some areas, and the subject we were discussing in the other thread might be one of them.
We're all like that, though, even you.
I never said I was perfect, or a machine, or without flaws.
Perhaps you believe that you are, I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 11-28-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2005 5:51 AM nator has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 136 (264250)
11-29-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Modulous
11-29-2005 9:35 AM


Re: mistakes, they just add up
First an erroneous comparison to spousal abuse now an erroneous comparison to disaster management.
No, the first is an alternate example of something that is common, showing that your argument that something is common is not any reason for it to be considered acceptable or good in any way.
The second is an example of someone who without any prior history in the position was incompetent to perform the duties of the position, thus refuting your point that they need a history to show incompetence.
... I believe that consistently causing damage to other vehicles is a mark of competence ...
Fascinating. So 100% of american drivers are competent to drive?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2005 9:35 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2005 2:42 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 114 of 136 (264373)
11-30-2005 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
11-29-2005 6:11 PM


Re: mistakes, they just add up
No, the first is an alternate example of something that is common, showing that your argument that something is common is not any reason for it to be considered acceptable or good in any way.
Not suggesting that a common event should be considered acceptable. Very common accidents are not comparable to less common (but still too common) deliberate acts of violence. What makes it 'acceptable' is that it is a mistake.
Most people will have a fault accident in their vehicle (it is common); you are suggesting that most people are incompetent drivers. A position I have tried to show as erroneous, by discussing accident frequency and opportunities for fault, which you haven't addressed.
Fascinating. So 100% of american drivers are competent to drive?
RAZD, if you read what I actually said, you'll find the answer to that question. I'm trying to work out why you seem to have devolved your debating style ten years. The full quote, Mr Quote Miner, is:
quote:
Yes, RAZD, of course, I believe that consistently causing damage to other vehicles is a mark of competence because I believe that occasionally making a mistake whilst driving that leads to damage is an expected risk due to human error.
No RAZD.
The first half of the sentence is the conclusion you somehow reached given my position outlined in the second half. The final sentence is my respsonse to your rather bizarre false dichotomy in Message 110
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 30-November-2005 07:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2005 6:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2005 6:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 115 of 136 (264388)
11-30-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by nator
11-29-2005 1:43 PM


Even experts can disagree, holmes, and neither you nor I are experts.
They can agree to disagree on conclusions, as long as the facts are inconclusive or able to support either conclusion.
The facts are unable to support your conclusions. They have been diametrically opposed to your conclusions.
No, in that case there is no such thing as agreeing to disagree, even by experts.
Perhaps you believe that you are, I don't know.
I'm not without flaws, but I can stick with a method and admit what it is showing, even if I don't like it.
Given this apologetics for your own behavior I must point out that your commentary to brenna doesn't make much sense, does it?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 11-29-2005 1:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 11-30-2005 7:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 136 (264399)
11-30-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Silent H
11-30-2005 5:51 AM


Of course, I may be blind, or ruled by bias or emotion or a biologically- or culturally-based aversion to certain concepts in some areas, and the subject we were discussing in the other thread might be one of them.
We're all like that, though, even you.
Yours is an attempt to bully me into agreeing with you. It won't work.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-30-2005 07:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2005 5:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2005 12:48 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 117 of 136 (264447)
11-30-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by nator
11-30-2005 7:37 AM


Yours is an attempt to bully me into agreeing with you. It won't work.
You don't seem to understand what I am doing. That you think it is merely an attempt to bully you into an agreement is interesting. If your claim here is true then that means all your post to brenna was was an attempt to bully her.
What I am pointing out is that you rather routinely appeal to scientific method as a way to reach proper or better conclusions. And you chastise those that deviate, as you just did here.
Yet in another topic you refuse to use that method and conclusions drawn from that method. When presented with this contrary position you have said we must "agree to disagree" and imply that it could be that one of us could be wrong (despite using the sci method) in that other issue.
Of course that is nonsensical if your appeal to brenna is that the sci method delivers better results and so she should trust what you have to say on this subject, or appealing to anyone else on any other subject (even the evo v creo threads).
What I am not doing is trying to make you agree with my position on that other issue. What I am doing is trying to make you see that you are being inconsistent and you need to deal with that inconsistency. You either need to give me credit in that other issue when I use the same argument you do towards others in other issues, or you need to stop using that argument because it is meaningless.
Otherwise brenna here, and everyone everywhere else (including evo v creo threads) can say the same thing back to you...
Of course, I may be blind, or ruled by bias or emotion or a biologically- or culturally-based aversion to certain concepts in some areas, and the subject we were discussing in the other thread might be one of them.
We're all like that, though, even you.
Is that a satisfactory answer to someone who has presented evidence to you, particularly including several research articles on a subject, and you have provided none?
Is it your assertion that the scientific method is a useless tool and cannot be used in a consistent way to overcome biases at all? If so, why should it be used? Why is it important?
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-30-2005 12:52 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 11-30-2005 7:37 AM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 136 (264554)
11-30-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
11-30-2005 2:42 AM


Re: mistakes, they just add up
With this post I am done with this topic, as it is so far off topic anyway.
The person in question did not just make a mistake, they made a definite error in judgment.
This is not a case of barely bumping the car ahead at the light or while parking or any other little nudges that occur, this was a full on impact that was beyond the capability of the bumpers to contain the forces.
This was not a case of getting just barely out of line, but of missing the goal by over a foot.
Your continued comparison of this to lots of common little nudges and side swipes is a false comparison and does not address the issue of this persons failures.
This is similar to saying that all people get their cheeks patted from time to time, so getting slapped is okay too.
Are you honestly saying there should be no consequences for a driver that performs that badly?
As far as I am concerned this person was incompetent to drive because they displayed the kind of error in judgement that could easily result in serious injury or death in other situations.
You have said nothing to convince me otherwise.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2005 2:42 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2005 7:53 AM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 119 of 136 (264675)
12-01-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
11-30-2005 6:41 PM


Re: mistakes, they just add up
The person in question did not just make a mistake, they made a definite error in judgment.
Isn't an error in judgment a mistake? Its certainly an error, and an error I thought was fairly synonymous with mistake.
This is not a case of barely bumping the car ahead at the light or while parking or any other little nudges that occur, this was a full on impact that was beyond the capability of the bumpers to contain the forces.
So the speed at which an error occurs or the distance from another car a person is when they make a mistake transforms it from an error into incompetence?
Your continued comparison of this to lots of common little nudges and side swipes is a false comparison and does not address the issue of this persons failures.
I only know of one failing that this person has made, I tried to discuss other failings this person made, but it appears you didn't know about them either. As I have said, if they were travelling at 20mph and looking in their mirror for 2.5 seconds, whilst drifting off course they can do a significant amount of damage. Wet feet slipping on pedals, a sneezing fit, glaring sunlight, concentrating on one thing to the detriment of another, being in too much of a hurry or driving too close to other vehicles, all these things are driving errors that just about everyone is guilty of from time to time. In the majority of cases no damage is done, or the error is rectified quick enough to avoid an accident.
This is similar to saying that all people get their cheeks patted from time to time, so getting slapped is okay too.
Its actually nothing like it, patting cheeks and slapping are both deliberate acts. Its more like saying everybody makes mistakes, we are all liable for any damage caused by those mistakes. What you are trying to say is that everybody drops merchandise in shops, so dropping a vase is not a sign of incompetence.
Are you honestly saying there should be no consequences for a driver that performs that badly?
Did I say that at any point? Or have I said the opposite? I believe Message 78 should clear this up for us:
quote:
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).
As far as I am concerned this person was incompetent to drive because they displayed the kind of error in judgement that could easily result in serious injury or death in other situations.
An interesting criteria, but I feel it is flawed. Hitting a parked car at 20mph or near to it is very very very rarely going to cause death, though minor injuries are a possibility. If it had been oncoming the chances are higher, but would this person had made the error if traffic conditions were changed to this extent? We don't know, it is absolute conjecture.
You have said nothing to convince me otherwise.
And likewise, you have not done a thing to convince me that your tiny tiny sample size of 30 seconds of this person's driving experience is indicative of his driving skill. I have tried to put forward criteria such as parked cars missed vs parked cars hit. I have tried to compare this man's driving to the average of other drivers. It could be that he has had five times less accidents than your neighbour, or Joe Average. You have not provided any actual evidence that the accident was caused by incompetence rather than as the result of a one off error.
You'll have to trust me when I tell you that I deal with a dozen accidents a day; I hear about this kind of incident and the plethora of reasons behind them, some bullshit, some sincere. On the grand majority of incidents like this it is a one off event, for which they are embarassed and upset about. Sometimes someone will tell me that the person was 'parked wrong' or some crap like that. That's the first indication of an incompetent driver, someone who won't accept that it was their fault, accept responsibility and move on. And it is these kinds of people that more frequently have mulitple claims on their files.
If your man had this kind of attitude then perhaps he was incompetent, thought more data would be needed than your obviously biased opinion.
With this post I am done with this topic, as it is so far off topic anyway.
No worries, if you want to discuss it any further and want to be on topic, feel free to start a coffee house topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2005 6:41 PM RAZD has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 120 of 136 (266951)
12-08-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
11-24-2005 8:50 PM


depressing...
mick writes:
As a long-term alcoholic, I find this all very depressing.
As a 20 yr alcoholic myself, I understand how you feel.
But I guess I see myself as an alcohol 'user', rather than an alcohol 'abuser'.
But that is not to say I don't have reservations about its effects, or that I probably shouldn't drink less than I do.
Still, I am definitely a 'functional alcoholic' - so far - but maybe I would feel forced to resort to more harmful 'de-stressors' if I didn't drink.
It has become my quick-and-always-effective 'de-stresser' at the end of every day, but I take measures to avoid overindulgance.
I drink to relax, rather than to 'feel good' - if I start feeling good I know I've had too much.
But isn't there that potential in some people to overindulge in something - whatever they find most to their liking at the substantive level, and then fail to control those impulses?
Check out this story:
Instant Millions Can't Halt Winners' Grim Slide - The New York Times
Exerpts:
"CORBIN, Ky., Nov. 30 - For Mack W. Metcalf and his estranged second wife, Virginia G. Merida, sharing a $34 million lottery jackpot in 2000 meant escaping poverty at breakneck speed.
Though they were divorced by 2001, it was as if their lives as rich people had taken on an eerie symmetry. So did their deaths.
In 2003, just three years after cashing in his winning ticket, Mr. Metcalf died of complications relating to alcoholism at the age of 45. Then on the day before Thanksgiving, Ms. Merida's partly decomposed body was found in her bed. Authorities said they have found no evidence of foul play and are looking into the possibility of a drug overdose. She was 51."
I think we have to be careful before we put ALL blame on someone's drug of choice in self-destruction. It doesn't mean it wil end that way for all users. Some people have to be held responsible for their own destruction, regardless of the 'tool' they select.
So it was for George Best...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 11-24-2005 8:50 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 12-09-2005 7:11 AM EZscience 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