Listen, you know what kills more people than drunk drivers? Sober drivers. Should we make cars illegal just because people die? No, it's a staple of life with potential lethal consequences, like crossing the street, eating too many calories and standing on roller coasters. Oh, here we are with the condescension again and your "eternal-life fantasy" because of your decision not to drink. Demeaning others lifestyles just because you don't relate to them doesn't make you right, it just means you're practicing an act of judgment. Trust me, I'm the first to acknowledge society's lack of concern for alcohol-related risks but anyone who is a well-rounded member of society can pretty much agree that drinking a few beers doesn't make you a vehicular child-murderer. Suggesting that this is a strange, delusional view for me to pertain to seems a little ironic to me. Plus all the cool kids are doing it, man. I've never even eaten it but I don't like the smell. You're an anchovy guy? Oh, don't make me blush.
Yeah man, they're like tiny little scaps of salty fish-taste. Granted, they don't go well on, like, a Meat Lovers/Meat Supreme-type pizza, but if you have a bit of variety in terms of your toppings you could do a lot worse. Last pizza I had had habaneros, capers, bell pappers and anchovy among other things, was pretty delish.
Fuck this. I've had someone very dear to me die in a drunk driving incident. I still drink, it wasn't the act of drinking that made the person drunk drive, it was his decision while drunk to be at the wheel. You could say that his decision to drive was fueled by alcohol but it wasn't, the guy was a fucking dumb ass when sober too (ohya, I knew the guy who was drunk driving too, small towns suck). You also seem to act as if it's an epidemic of some sort, which is pretty lol itself. Might as well have Hypnos back on the forum for some retarded stance on drinking. On the stance of prohibition though, lololololololol, how ridiculous. The fact that there's a prohibition on stuff like marijuana, e, cocain etc is the reason why the Cartel exists and why there's a small town in Columbia where they use cocaine as a currency. I don't want to imagine a first world country enforcing something like that again. I don't want to repeat anything besides that I want Void's babies.
<sarcasm>Because the drugs prohibition is working so well.</sarcasm> Prohibitions make us less free, banning something because it's possible to cause others harm when using it is daft. The only time it makes sense is if the item's only purpose is to harm others, like automatic assault rifles, grenades, landmines, rocket launchers, etc. Any drug only harms the user. That user can harm others, but they can do that independently of drugs. It's the user's choice, allowing them that choice is what freedom is all about. The other problem is that prohibitions cause more deaths than the prohibited item does. The alcohol prohibition led to organised crime ripping chunks out of each other and innocent civilians were, of course, drawn into the crossfire. Monitoring drunk drivers and inflicting harsher sentencing is a possible solution. Not jail time, that doesn't help anyone, but longer bans from owning a licence or car. They should have to give up their car and should be banned for years rather than months. Owning and driving a car is a right privilege and if they fail in their responsibility to hold up the rules of the road, then they should have it stripped. EDIT: Thanks to loony for pointing out a semantic mistake I made.
Oh man that sounds adventurous. I usually just go pepperoni + bacon. I'm a simple guy. Yeah I think this is a really good point. The people I know who drive on alcohol (not many, and none too close, thankfully) don't wake up and feel remorse over it the next day when they're sober, they laugh it off and they continue to drive drunk. It's a quality of their character, not necessarily an uncontrollable urge brought on by intoxication. Not to suggest that mistakes don't happen, of course. Also, sorry for your loss. Don't snatch my babies!
Seems as though those that are dependent on alcohol do indeed defend it. Alcohol removes inhabition, thus one could say drunk drivers would have been murders at any time. My stance is retarded do to the fact that I did once drink for a few years. Drinking is less a single event and more a secondary lifestyle. I could say that those people probably get drunk around their kids, thus setting a grand example for the new generation. If this was a lame debate, ask yourself why alcoholism is listed as a 'major disesase', causing a billion dollar a year decifit. Perhaps it's not a global epidemic as ebola, or the various flu's have been, but discounting how disasterous and costly it has become and has always been, is a serious flaw in one's better judgment. GEEZZ NOW I NEED A DRINK Apple juice only though. ;D Feel free to rip asunder my stance, I don't stick around enough to reason a care.
You realize that by generalizing everyone who has a favorable opinion on current alcohol legislation by implying a dependency and addiction that you are, in fact, a dick and no longer bent on argument via reason and logic but instead by childish derogation? Boy, I hope so. You know who drinks beer and isn't an alcoholic? Your president, your favorite musicians (unless you like New Kids on the fucking Block), the teachers that taught you, and just about everyone you pass on the sidewalk. Don't act like an occasional activity can degrade anyones integrity, because at the end of the day all of those people are successful and rad and you're just whining about other people enjoying their lives on an anime forum, probably wearing socks with holes and furrowed brows as you click-clack away on your keyboard with envy about all those non-virgins out sipping beers while you eat Cap'n Crunch out of the box while watching Saturday Night Live. No offense. Maybe for you, but just because you have no self-control doesn't mean everyone is incapable of functioning as a conscious adult (speak for your fucking self). Alcoholism is considered a disease because "disease" is defined as "A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury." Depending entirely on who you talk to, yes, alcoholism can qualify as a disease because it encompasses mental addiction. But by this same criteria and this same definition, all psychologically addictive activities can be diseases - this includes your crippling addiction to facebook and the internet at large, your masturbation habits and even the pot you smoke, which you apparently support the legalization of. In other words, you have presented me nothing but the easiest of fallacies to ride on. Edit: for the record I do think alcohol is a shitty drug and there are legions of drugs that are more interesting, more fun and safer for you, but given the notion of freedom and the context of the United States in 2011 it would most definitely be a civil rights issue and it would stand no chance of success, obviously. That's my point. That's the point.
You expand reasoning to include many different forms, yet you fail to adknowledge that alcohol is a foundation for disaster. Again, people will die, even as you type a remarkably shallow retort. I admit my phrasing did make it seem as I attacked those who drink. I only know that those who drink, don't drink 'only one' drink. They use excuses to continue to justify their drinking. Oh, when has someone killed many innocent people on route from their school on marijuana? When has masterbation led to a man beating his wife and kids up over trivial bullshit? Not all who drink will end up falling into the deep end of drowning in the firewater. But drinking should no longer be presented as the 'thing to do' to have a good time. DUI'S should be enforced by license revocation. The ad campaigns showing drinking to be the only way to have fun at parties(or anywhere anymore) should also show the after results of a car crash fatality. I do apologise for what seemed as an attack. My frilly socks look damn good too.
dedboy shouldnt you be committing felonies or something, you know, trying to lure minors and whatever
Are you kidding? Void has done an excellent job of showing that alcohol does not cause disaster. As the old adage goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The only one with remarkably shallow retorts here is you. Your pathetic thread is not worthy of being called a debate when all you are doing is pushing your morals down the world's throat. Again, speak for yourself. Most adults are fully capable of moderating themselves. It's the few who can't that should be and are punished for it. Herp derp death is the only consequence So now even you aren't arguing for prohibition? I don't know about your backassward home, but we here in the civilised world already have a lot of anti-alcohol warnings. Hell, when I graduated high school they gave us a complete freaking guide to safe partying.
I'm certain it's safe to say that I speak for (almost) everyone here that your sentence is entirely false. Alcohol is not the foundation of disaster; stupidity however is. I'm not even going to bother mentioning obvious examples here in this thread for the latter. No, your arguments here on this thread are a deliberate attack on those who drink. Your condescending remarks combined with your shallow reasoning offend and piss people off. Your latter sentence even exemplifies your shallow reasoning. You commit the hasty generalization fallacy, as you try to correlate people that you know who drink to reach a false conclusion that all drinkers behave like that. What's your reasoning for this crap? All alcohol advertisements include a brief warning to consumers to "drink responsibly". Everybody with a decent education knows that driving under influence leads to horrendous results. Does everyone need to be reminded about that? The warning included in the advertisements are sufficient. Adding anymore information regarding cautions and warnings in alcohol advertisements, as well as everything else (thank you frivolous lawsuits in America!) would suggest that everyone needs to be spoon-fed for everything that is common-sense. Besides, we have organizations such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) taking on the task of presenting disturbing images of drunk driving already. We don't need alcohol companies presenting the disturbing imagery of drunk driving in their advertisements, as their job is to sell alcohol. They already are upholding this. Why don't you look this stuff up before spouting off your "suggestions"? Again, your statements are a deliberate attack. Don't even bother apologizing. You've done the damage already, and as you can see, you've pissed off a handful of people.
Lol is this alluding to something? Oh man we could get along. Yeah, basically his entire argument is that he has a devil-perception of alcohol and that he is right because we use alcohol. That's like calling blacks (any demographic of people, I'm being as dramatic as possible of course) evil and then saying their counter-opinion doesn't count because they are black. I won't reiterate, tehuber and Hypr hit the nail on the head
