why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread

I agree that people getting violent while drunk, and driving while drunk is a question for the community.Its also not really worthwhile for people to get blind falling down drunk. I mean I've been there on a few occassions and it never beat the times where I just had a few drinks and got buzzed. In fact some of those were great times.So I think trying to encourage responsible drinking would be useful. Of course I don't know why it has to be done in such a lamentable moralistic tone. You don't over drink because you just shouldn't and its better for society, you shouldn't over drink because it is really fun when you are buzzed and remain conscious to enjoy it.I don't believe alcohol causes violence, but it sure lets violent people act more violently by dropping inhibitions and giving them and excuse. The proper treatment for a violent drunk is to treat the violence and anger within them.The point crash raised about other substances is valid, but he's leading that charge so I'll stay out of that subject.As far as alcoholism is concerned, and I am sorry to hear that you suffer from it, is that that is not society's problem. If it is torture to see "everyone but you" able to have fun with something, that you cannot, that really is your individual problem. Though I guess the important thing to remember is EVERYONE has their own problem where they don't get to have fun while everyone else can.The important thing is to move on and channel your energies into enjoying those other interests which you can handle, but some other poor slob cannot.And this will really sound cold-hearted, but in a way allowing others to drink and suffer as they will, is what gives everyone (including that person) concrete examples of why moderation is important. Laws are not as useful as lessons in life.Being told not to drink can make people seek it out just for that reason. Knowing or seeing someone suffering from overdrinking makes one reflect on their own behavior. Generally people don't go "hey now I wanna see what THAT's all about".Okay, sorry if I offended you. Didn't mean to but that's honestly how I see suffering and society's attempts to end suffering through making morals laws. I hope you do not suffer as much from it now as you did, and will get even better. There are many other things in life to enjoy.

---

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

Be careful of stats. The above does not suggest to me what it does to you, and indeed perhaps the opposite.For alcohol to be a problem, the proper stat you'd want to see is that 50% of cases of alcohol use end up in domestic violence. The stat you gave suggests that those that are involved in domestic violence are split on whether they will use alcohol.One has to ask as well if those likely to engage in domestic violence may have other issues which will lead to drinking.

---

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

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)

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. 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)

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... 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)