Sexism, Racism, Etc.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I have righteousness delusions, nothing wrong with that. If social drinking is drinking to be social, then I can no longer call myself a social drinker. I drink brandy for the taste as much as I eat ham.

[Nyarlathotep]

Agreed. There's nothing quite like popping open a bottle of Smithwick's or Warsteiner Dunkel and sitting down with friends to enjoy a movie. oDDity, stop blowing it out of proportion. Social drinkers by definition do not drink enough to be intoxicated, and only those who do get intoxicated act out.

 

All this talk of drinking is making me thirsty. Excuse me, but I have a Smithwick's calling my name.

[oDDity]

I'll repeat it then, if you're not drinking to become intoxicated, drink non-alcoholic versions of beer then.

It's not as if a chemical such as alcohol tastes good, or it makes the movie better.

Fortunately, I have no intention of doing any such thing. Problem solved! Drugs are like anything else, a little bit can be enjoyable, even helpful. A lot can really cause you problems. Its a question of degrees. Don't condemn me if you know your sense of self control isn't strong enough.

Come on there's no point in trying to claw your way back now, you've already admitted, nay, boasted, that you smoke it like there's no tomorrow 'more than Bob Marley and all the Wailers combined'.

That's another thing that annoys me. You guys actually think it's cool to smoke dope or drink. There's probably nothing you like more than telling some feeble anecdote about how drunk your were last night, how many times you were sick, and how much stupid nonsense you got up to while you didn't have control of your mind.

[Maximius]

You guys actually think it's cool to smoke dope or drink.

 

Thats not true, no one should be faced with such a stark choice!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2007 by Maximius

[Nyarlathotep]

I'll repeat it then, if you're not drinking to become intoxicated, drink non-alcoholic versions of beer then.

It's not as if a chemical such as alcohol tastes good, or it makes the movie better.

I don't drink O'Douls for the same reason most people don't drink decaffeinated coffee or Diet Coke--hell, even caffiene-free coke! They simply don't taste as good. Besides, most beers that are any good to begin with don't come in a non-alcoholic version, negating your point entirely.

 

That's another thing that annoys me. You guys actually think it's cool to smoke dope or drink. There's probably nothing you like more than telling some feeble anecdote about how drunk your were last night, how many times you were sick, and how much stupid nonsense you got up to while you didn't have control of your mind.

You're not even trying anymore, are you? Everything I've said, and most of what Maximus has said, is in explicit contradiction to your crazy talk, and in some cases, preemptively so. What scares me is that you don't seem to be able to recognize that fact. Simply put, your hatred of all things chemical stems from your personal (almost religious) belief. Prove me wrong, and accept that what we've been telling might have some merit, even if you choose never to enact on it.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Let's not argue here. Let's discuss our favourite drinks instead if we want to discuss something. I never drink beer. Although from a historical perspective, beer is better than gin. But I don't drink anything gin-like things either. Iced tea 98% of the time. There's a good reason why alcohol cannot be excluded from brandys and herbal liquors - it's a solvent used to extract substances from the herbs and it's essential for the appreciation of the drink through the trigeminal pathways. Another solvent could be used, but it likely would be more toxic and expensive, as it also needs to be a carrier.

[demagogue]

They simply don't taste as good.

 

You'll be interested to know (from what I've read, anyway) that diet drinks, non-brews, etc, are actually engineered to taste somewhat bad/watery ... something to do with marketing and dieter's/non-drinker's guilt-psychology.

 

I drink pretty rarely and in moderation. But I enjoy it when I do. I feel like I can really trust a person when they'll go drinking with me ... It tells me they aren't afraid something will slip out about their feelings that they are trying to hide. (And I can tell they have self-control when they know not to go overboard.)

 

Also, I worked for a vineyard for a winery (actually on a kibbutz commune; that ought to make Maximius happy) and my father has recently obtained a wine vineyard ... so of course we have to like wine. I've always liked when a particular drink has a history in a region, like wine or microbrew beers, so there's more to it than "just a buzz". It's a kind of connection to the place that goes back generations, that is sorely lacking in most aspects of life these days.

Edited March 23, 2007 by demagogue

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Does anyone besides me drink Irn-bru?

[Nyarlathotep]

Never heard of it, I'm afraid.

 

You'll be interested to know (from what I've read, anyway) that diet drinks, non-brews, etc, are actually engineered to taste somewhat bad/watery ... something to do with marketing and dieter's/non-drinker's guilt-psychology.

That might be becoming the case nowadays, but in truth, when they first made them, they simply didn't have the technology to do so. Furthermore, companies are wising up to the fact that diet drinks are very large market--consisting of those who cannot or simply refuse to drink the normal drink.

 

I drink pretty rarely and in moderation. But I enjoy it when I do. I feel like I can really trust a person when they'll go drinking with me ... It tells me they aren't afraid something will slip out about their feelings that they are trying to hide. (And I can tell they have self-control when they know not to go overboard.)

You know, I never thought of it like that, but it's absolutely true. In that sense, moderate drinking is a great measure of one's character.

 

Also, I worked for a vineyard for a winery (actually on a kibbutz commune; that ought to make Maximius happy) and my father has recently obtained a wine vineyard ... so of course we have to like wine. I've always liked when a particular drink has a history in a region, like wine or microbrew beers, so there's more to it than "just a buzz". It's a kind of connection to the place that goes back generations, that is sorely lacking in most aspects of life these days.

...And that's part of why I hate most American beers--besides the fact that they generally taste like horse piss. Bring on the microbrew!

 

 

 

I note that we have gone extremely far off-topic now. Is there any point in bringing it back in?

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

There was never much point for the topic to exist in the first place.

Some years ago I drank coke, and most times I preferred the diet-coke because otherwise the sucrose heavily stimulates mucous production in my throat, even though the diet-coke's taste is worse.

[oDDity]

I literally never drink anything except water or tea.

And don't give me any predictable crap about me 'being addicted to the caffeine in the tea'.

For the amount of caffeine in a cup of tea, and how little I drink it, you may as well claim I'm addicted the the fucking hydrogen in the water.

[Nyarlathotep]

Good for you. However, most people avail themselves to a much wider array of potentially addictive substances, and yet somehow the majority never become anything resembling addiction (with the possible exception of caffeine). I wonder why?

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I used to like caffeine as I noticed upon consuming it I would a) become happier and use time more productively for academics. A little over a year ago I stopped consuming it because it irritated my gastrointestinal system. A few months ago I noticed further reason to not consume it. I bought a small cup of coffee, drank it, and noticed that although I have become artificially awake, my frontal lobe activity increased as did my basic productivity for studying or doing work, but my higher cognitive abilities have completely shut down. I have only become aware of them a few months ago, so during previous consumption I was not aware of them shutting down. They manifest as the ability to think in parallel about future, past, contradicting concepts at once, philosophy, and advanced conceptualization with the details now being taken care of automatically. Also, a single cup of normally brewed tea is enough to diminish those abilities by 20%.

[demagogue]

oDDity, nobody has to justify drinking tea when they're European.

Although I don't think it's as healthy as they let on, no one can deny it's relaxing.

 

When I was growing up, all tea was iced (and Lipton), and all coffee hot (and black/American).

 

It's a sign of how much the world has "progressed" since then that, after spending significant time living in Japan, Europe, and NYC, all tea is now hot (and everything from Earl Grey to Oolong), and coffee is iced more often than not (and either something with an Italian name or from some third world country). Globalization has turned the world upside down, I guess.

[oDDity]

I'll assume you're being facetious there, and do realise that people have been drinking tea leaves with boiling water since it's inception.

It was one of the reasons for reduced mortality rates in Europe, the properties of the tea itself, and the habitual boiling of water with which to drink it.

It's only you stupid yanks who get it all ass backwards as usual, in your endless quest for individualism and your own culture, when all you'll ever be is a bunch of European colonists who get it all wrong.

It's funny how much you can travel and still be completely ignorant about anything except the gaudy tourist attractions and nightclubs you visited.

[Ishtvan]

I think it depends on the region of the US you're in. I've found hot tea readily available in most places as long as I can remember (I'm 25). In restaurants I guess iced has been more common, but you could still order it hot. Also, isn't drinking tea hot an Asian custom, since tea ultimately comes from there? If you ask someone in China, we're all barbarians because we drink our water cold (they like recently boiled water over there, probably kills a lot of the crap in it).

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

It's the Chinese who are barbarians who don't realize the romanticism of drinking from streams and rivers in the vast and unspoiled expanses of north america while traveling on horse to some urban centre to continue enjoying one's freedom. Besides, boiled water tastes bad because the organic compounds (mostsly from microorganisms) combine into chelates with metal ions and various inorganic cations.

[Ombrenuit]

That's another thing that annoys me. You guys actually think it's cool to smoke dope or drink.

 

I can understand if you are against it. I know that drugs aren't a free ride; as much as you take from it, it still takes something from you. I believe that adults however can take responsibility for their drug use on their own. They understand the dangers and can carefully weigh the benefits and negative effects. Sure, you can look down on them; that's your prerogative.

 

I've dabbled in drug use myself, and for the most part I feel that it did more bad than good for me. That doesn't mean that I feel like those who enjoy a glass of brandy or wine are irresponsible or despicable human beings or that I would never enjoy the same.

[oDDity]

That line of reasoning doesn't work in the 21st century..

That's why there are laws such as wearing seat belts in cars, or helmets on motorbikes, and general safety laws and regulations in may areas of life.

Some people are just plain dumb, and need a good kick in the ass to wise up. If you didn't make it law, most of them don't bother doing such things.

A massive amount of people still smoke tobacco even know they are completely aware that it's very unhealthy.

With that sort of nonchalant stupidity and thickheadedness around, it's no surprise than society has to make laws for people's own safety, whether they like it or not.

You could make the same argument for anything - 'we're all adults, so if we want to risk our lives, let us do it'.

You obviously see it as a fault of modern society that it values it's citizen's lives so much that it takes all these precautions to try and minimise the risk of losing or damaging it, and goes to such lengths to try and preserve it.

[OrbWeaver]

Some people are just plain dumb, and need a good kick in the ass to wise up. If you didn't make it law, most of them don't bother doing such things.

 

That's their problem. The only justifiable laws are those that protect other people, not the lawbreaker themselves.

 

You obviously see it as a fault of modern society that it values it's citizen's lives so much that it takes all these precautions to try and minimise the risk of losing or damaging it, and goes to such lengths to try and preserve it.

 

That's right. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about life beyond the value that it gives to its owner and others around him. If people want to evolve themselves out of the gene pool through their own self-destructive actions then they should be permitted, if not encouraged, to do so. There is enough of an overpopulation problem as it is.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I'm with orb here, odd. I think people should be allowed to self-destruct.

[oDDity]

That's their problem. The only justifiable laws are those that protect other people, not the lawbreaker themselves.

That's right. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about life beyond the value that it gives to its owner and others around him. If people want to evolve themselves out of the gene pool through their own self-destructive actions then they should be permitted, if not encouraged, to do so. There is enough of an overpopulation problem as it is.

 

Not in the UK there isn't, we're having to import people. so unless you want to modify your argument to only apply to overpopulated regions, it's pretty weak.

So you don't even agree with laws such as wearing helmets on motorbikes?

I don't think people deserve to die simply because of dumb bravado or carelessness.

You may as well say women who wear revealing clothes in certain situations deserve to be raped, since they're obviously asking for it, or putting themselves at a higher risk of it happening than woman who dress more sensibly.

IN fact, you can even take that line of reasoning to it's ultimate conclusion and say that anyone who doesn't carry a loaded gun, and isn't an expert marksman, deserves to be shot dead by thugs, because they failed to adequately protect themselves fro that possibility.

Tunnel vision rather than common sense is just part of the human condition when it comes to certain things.

I don't think you can kill us all off because of it. We're risk takers by nature, but when we get together and think things through as a society, we become a lot more sensible, and that's when rules, regulations and laws come in.

[demagogue]

Jeez, you people and your taking things to their logical conclusions. Orb and Odd, both of your positions smell of dogmatism.

 

There are situations when the government has a reasonable interest in watching over, or at least better informing, the choices of people so they don't make stupid, rash decisions they'll inevitably regret later on; and situations when it should just keep its hands off and let people have what they want, even to their own detriment.

 

There may be problems with who draws the line between the two -- political representatives (possibly too friendly with the industry they want to regulate), technocrat scientists (possibly too focused on the technical trees to see the real-world forest), activist consumer groups (possibly too anal for their own good) ... but those are problems to handle, rather than just throwing out the whole idea that there really is a line.

 

And by the way, smoking and drugs aren't the great test-cases for this idea. Both have their makers actively enhancing their addictive powers to manipulate the self-control abilities of users, which manipulations (and the addictive effects) are not common knowledge to those "choosing" to get started, not knowing entirely what they are choosing. Prostitution and gambling aren't much better (are the girls *really* choosing this freely? should casinos really allow local people to cash their pay-checks in for chips?). I might be more comfortable with these if I were convinced people really understood what they were doing (in the long run) before they did it, and even better if there were a good way to check it (it's not good punishing self-controlled people because of a few uncontrollable addicts need special attention.)

 

On the other hand, I think it's ok to allow people to eat fatty junk food, but it depresses me to see how porky the US has become because people apparently can't even control stuffing their faces with food.

Edited March 24, 2007 by demagogue

[OrbWeaver]

So you don't even agree with laws such as wearing helmets on motorbikes?

 

I don't object to such laws, but I don't necessarily see the need for them either. Riding a motorcycle on the road without a helmet is so unimaginably stupid that it's probably no great loss to society if people who do it don't last very long.

 

You may as well say women who wear revealing clothes in certain situations deserve to be raped, since they're obviously asking for it, or putting themselves at a higher risk of it happening than woman who dress more sensibly.

 

"Deserve" is a strong word, nobody deserves to be raped. However, wearing revealing clothes in a dangerous area is a bloody stupid thing to do, and not some inalienable "right" like the squealing feminists make out. People have a "right" to walk around in a black area with "I hate niggers" written on their shirt if they want to, but they won't get any sympathy from me when the obvious consequence of their actions comes to pass.

 

Prostitution and gambling aren't much better (are the girls *really* choosing this freely? should casinos really allow local people to cash their pay-checks in for chips?). I might be more comfortable with these if I were convinced people really understood what they were doing (in the long run) before they did it, and even better if there were a good way to check it (it's not good punishing self-controlled people because of a few uncontrollable addicts need special attention.)

 

An appropriate headline I once read in the Guardian was something like "I love my job, says stripper. No you don't, say feminists". It's typical of people to assume that nobody would ever want to do anything that they consider unpleasant, and therefore people should be stopped from doing it because obviously they have been forced or manipulated in some way -- but this is actually an arrogant and conformist attitude on the part of society, and one for which I have no tolerance. Why should minority interests be squashed just because the ruling majority, who aren't necessarily any better informed, simply don't agree with them?

[Ishtvan]

I think you could make an argument that there is a clear line: If your action does not have any measurable negative externality to others, it should be allowed. I can see policing kids because they haven't mentally developed enough yet to understand what they're doing, but when we become adults, we're capable of educating ourselves on the risks/benefits of what we do.

 

Take your example of food: The gov't mandates that food makers list all their ingredients, and which ones are known to cause health problems, then the decision is left up to the consumer. No matter what you do, there will be some people who chose to ignore all that information and eat themselves to death. Obesity is probably killing more people in the US than all the illegal drugs combined. Does that mean we should outlaw banana cream pie because some people can't be trusted not to eat a banana cream pie every day? If not, why does the same logic not apply to other things?

 

Yes it is tragic to watch people self-destruct, but I think it's the place of friends/family/social workers to try and talk them out of it, not the government's place to try and outlaw every single action that could potentially be abused in a self destructive way.

 

How many people honestly wear safety belts only because it's required by law, with no consideration for the safety benefit? What is the logic here: I'm so good at driving I'll never get in an accident, but I don't want to get a $100 ticket if I get caught with no seat belt? Sadly some few people out there probably do have that delusion. You would think if they could visualize a situation where they somehow get caught by police who notice they don't have a seatbelt, they could visualize a situation where their front tire unexpectedly blows out and they crash. Let's face it, these people are stupid. Why are we spending public time and money on ticketing stupid people who choose not to wear seatbelts instead of spending that time and money on catching murderers or providing better public schools that educate kids on why they should wear a seatbelt?