Drunken dad asks 11 year old Son to Drive

[Illuminatus Primus]

I like to consider things to be in concentric sets. The outmost bubble is labeled "stupid." Inside that, is "immoral." Inside that, is "illegal."

Naturally there are exceptions--drug use and gay marriage shouldn't be illegal; neither are immoral, and the latter isn't stupid, either.

[Embracer Of Darkness]

Yeah, but in my opinion, stupid or not, that falls under "your own damn fault" category.

Red herring. The stupidity of an action has nothing to do with whether you should have the freedom to do it.
In my opinion, it does. I wouldn't consider causing harm to my own body stupid. Reckless, yes, but not stupid. I would consider it stupid if it caused harm to others though.

I also go to black metal gigs and partake in a few extreme sports. I must be an absolute fucking moron! Or maybe I'm doing that I think is fun.

Some of us aren't affraid to step outside our own houses, so don't judge us on your paranoid fucking candyland lifestyle.

[BoredShirtless]

This debate is childish. We have Darth Wong here saying "your stupid if you get drunk because being drunk causes irreversible damage"....but one could also argue that soccer players are idiots too, because soccer causes irreversible damage [wear in the knee cartilage is one example].

Darth Wong, you should quit calling people who get drunk idiots. Most of us don't get drunk 7 days a week; the damage we do is arguably insignificant. And when we do it's on a Saturday night while having some fun. You already made a good point that drinking causes damage, let's leave it at that, ok?

[General Zod]

for once i'm inclined to agree with you BS. . .at least about dropping the argument. imo attempting to convince an alcoholic that binge drinking & excessive drinking might just be bad for them is alot like attempting to convince a fundie that the bible might just be wrong.

[Darth Wong]

Red herring. The stupidity of an action has nothing to do with whether you should have the freedom to do it.

In my opinion, it does. I wouldn't consider causing harm to my own body stupid.

What is your definition of "stupid"? Self-destructive behaviour is stupid; there is no real upside and there is an objectively verifiable downside.

Reckless, yes, but not stupid. I would consider it stupid if it caused harm to others though.

So you don't see recklessness as stupid?

I also go to black metal gigs and partake in a few extreme sports. I must be an absolute fucking moron! Or maybe I'm doing that I think is fun.

No, you're an absolute fucking moron.

Some of us aren't affraid to step outside our own houses, so don't judge us on your paranoid fucking candyland lifestyle.

False dilemma fallacy. Get back to me when you grow a brain.

[Darth Wong]

This debate is childish. We have Darth Wong here saying "your stupid if you get drunk because being drunk causes irreversible damage"....but one could also argue that soccer players are idiots too, because soccer causes irreversible damage [wear in the knee cartilage is one example].

I don't recall seeing statistics showing that soccer kills thousands of people every year.

Darth Wong, you should quit calling people who get drunk idiots. Most of us don't get drunk 7 days a week;

News flash: my argument was not predicated upon the assumption that you did.

the damage we do is arguably insignificant.

Oh yes, thousands of deaths every year not including drunk driving is "insignificant"

And when we do it's on a Saturday night while having some fun. You already made a good point that drinking causes damage, let's leave it at that, ok?

While it's obvious that you can't talk to an alcoholic about alcoholism because he is incapable of seeing reason, that doesn't change the facts.

[BoredShirtless]

for once i'm inclined to agree with you BS. . .at least about dropping the argument. imo attempting to convince an alcoholic that binge drinking & excessive drinking might just be bad for them is alot like attempting to convince a fundie that the bible might just be wrong.

Who are you calling an alcoholic?

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?alcoholism

A disorder characterised by pathological pattern of alcohol use that causes a serious impairment in social or occupational functioning

As far as I noted, no one admitted to a pattern. No one here said they get smashed, every Friday. Or everytime they go out. And just on "Serious impairment" - define drunk. For me, the definition of drunk is when I think differently. But I am NOT seriously impaired; I can still walk and talk normally.

[General Zod]

notice i wasn't referring to anyone specific that was posting. i was referring to alcoholics in general.

[BoredShirtless]

This debate is childish. We have Darth Wong here saying "your stupid if you get drunk because being drunk causes irreversible damage"....but one could also argue that soccer players are idiots too, because soccer causes irreversible damage [wear in the knee cartilage is one example].

I don't recall seeing statistics showing that soccer kills thousands of people every year.

I didn't say it was equivalent.

Darth Wong, you should quit calling people who get drunk idiots. Most of us don't get drunk 7 days a week;

News flash: my argument was not predicated upon the assumption that you did.

I didn't make an assumption, I stated a fact.

the damage we do is arguably insignificant.

Oh yes, thousands of deaths every year not including drunk driving is "insignificant"

Aren't we talking about guys like salm and I; guys who get smashed every so often? Not alcoholics, because I think we can all agree that alcoholics do significant damage.

And when we do it's on a Saturday night while having some fun. You already made a good point that drinking causes damage, let's leave it at that, ok?

While it's obvious that you can't talk to an alcoholic about alcoholism because he is incapable of seeing reason, that doesn't change the facts.

Ah. So everyone who gets drunk is automatically an alcoholic now eh? Don't make me laugh.

[Darth Wong]

This debate is childish. We have Darth Wong here saying "your stupid if you get drunk because being drunk causes irreversible damage"....but one could also argue that soccer players are idiots too, because soccer causes irreversible damage [wear in the knee cartilage is one example].

I don't recall seeing statistics showing that soccer kills thousands of people every year.

I didn't say it was equivalent.

You used it as an analogy, and it is an analogy of such vastly different scale that it is obviously not applicable.

Darth Wong, you should quit calling people who get drunk idiots. Most of us don't get drunk 7 days a week;

News flash: my argument was not predicated upon the assumption that you did.

I didn't make an assumption, I stated a fact.

You were accusing me of that assumption.

the damage we do is arguably insignificant.

Oh yes, thousands of deaths every year not including drunk driving is "insignificant"

Aren't we talking about guys like salm and I; guys who get smashed every so often? Not alcoholics, because I think we can all agree that alcoholics do significant damage.

Occasional binge drinking can lead to alcoholism down the road. It's like saying that it's not stupid to start smoking because you can always stop before you become addicted.

And when we do it's on a Saturday night while having some fun. You already made a good point that drinking causes damage, let's leave it at that, ok?

While it's obvious that you can't talk to an alcoholic about alcoholism because he is incapable of seeing reason, that doesn't change the facts.

Ah. So everyone who gets drunk is automatically an alcoholic now eh? Don't make me laugh.

Everyone who gets drunk is putting themselves at risk of becoming an alcoholic, and is also taking a risk that he might die that very night. What part of "addictive substance" do you not understand, exactly?

[BoredShirtless]

You were accusing me of that assumption.

No I wasn't, I was just stating the fact most of us aren't alcoholics via an obviously bombastic statement.

Occasional binge drinking can lead to alcoholism down the road. It's like saying that it's not stupid to start smoking because you can always stop before you become addicted.

Oh please will you consider degrees of addiction? Cigarette's are many times more addictive then alcohol. In other words, it IS stupid to start smoking because there is a good chance you'll get hooked. But the same is not true for alcohol, as everyone who has tried both will attest to.

Everyone who gets drunk is putting themselves at risk of becoming an alcoholic,

BTW do you have any stats for this?

and is also taking a risk that he might die that very night.

That depends on how drunk they get.

What part of "addictive substance" do you not understand, exactly?

What part of “degrees” do you not understand? Why are you arguing this topic in a black and white fashion?

[General Zod]

how does the fact that one substance is less addictive than the other change the fact that it is still addictive?

[Colonel Olrik]

how does the fact that one substance is less addictive than the other change the fact that it is still addictive?

Sugar is addictive, caffeine is addictive, in fact most of the best things in life can turn into an addiction. The degree of addiction is very important for you to decide which ones are safe enough to endulge in, and which are not.

[Darth Wong]

Oh please will you consider degrees of addiction? Cigarette's are many times more addictive then alcohol. In other words, it IS stupid to start smoking because there is a good chance you'll get hooked. But the same is not true for alcohol, as everyone who has tried both will attest to.

Alcoholism is a serious enough social problem that it is obviously a fairly addictive substance, even if it is not as addictive as tobacco. What's your point? Tobacco in turn isn't anywhere near as addictive as crack; does this mean tobacco is OK?

Everyone who gets drunk is putting themselves at risk of becoming an alcoholic,

BTW do you have any stats for this?

Sociological stats not involving objectively verifiable data such as injury or death are always highly suspect, but there is no shortage of information about the dangers of binge drinking:

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/binge/a/aa000818a.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/college/a/aa020415a.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/college/ ... 020614.htm

and is also taking a risk that he might die that very night.

That depends on how drunk they get.

The words "smashed" and "drunk", not to mention "throwing up", as mentioned earlier by someone else, obviously imply significant inebriation.

What part of "addictive substance" do you not understand, exactly?

What part of “degrees” do you not understand?

The part where it is relevant to this argument. But by all means, if you wish to backpedal away from "it's OK to get smashed" to "it's OK to have a couple of drinks now and then", be my guest.

Why are you arguing this topic in a black and white fashion?

Strawman fallacy.

[BoredShirtless]

how does the fact that one substance is less addictive than the other change the fact that it is still addictive?

It doesn't, nor did I say it did. But it should change your mind that calling people who get drunk sporadically "idiots" isn't fair. And it should also tell you that people who get drunk aren't necessarily alcoholics now, or possibly ever.

[General Zod]

And it should also tell you that people who get drunk aren't necessarily alcoholics now, or possibly ever.

mind quoting where i said they were?

[BoredShirtless]

Oh please will you consider degrees of addiction? Cigarette's are many times more addictive then alcohol. In other words, it IS stupid to start smoking because there is a good chance you'll get hooked. But the same is not true for alcohol, as everyone who has tried both will attest to.

Alcoholism is a serious enough social problem that it is obviously a fairly addictive substance, even if it is not as addictive as tobacco. What's your point? Tobacco in turn isn't anywhere near as addictive as crack; does this mean tobacco is OK?

The point is you over extended yourself with that smoking analogy.

and is also taking a risk that he might die that very night.

That depends on how drunk they get.

The words "smashed" and "drunk", not to mention "throwing up", as mentioned earlier by someone else, obviously imply significant inebriation.

It isn't obvious actually as you've been using the word "drunk" in the worst possible context, example: "Everyone who gets drunk is putting themselves at risk of becoming an alcoholic".

What part of "addictive substance" do you not understand, exactly?

What part of “degrees” do you not understand?

The part where it is relevant to this argument. But by all means, if you wish to backpedal away from "it's OK to get smashed" to "it's OK to have a couple of drinks now and then", be my guest.

Of course it's relevant. “Drunk” doesn't encompass all possible states of intoxication. Drinking to the point of blindness IS stupid for example, while getting drunk to the point of laughing at silly things isn't.

Why are you arguing this topic in a black and white fashion?

Strawman fallacy.

Really? So will you acknowledge then that getting drunk isn't necessarily stupid?

[BoredShirtless]

And it should also tell you that people who get drunk aren't necessarily alcoholics now, or possibly ever.

mind quoting where i said they were?

Did I say you said that?

[Darth Wong]

The point is you over extended yourself with that smoking analogy.

How? The analogy still applies; your "logic" is disproven by that case. Don't you understand what analogies are for? It's not to argue that situation A is exactly identical to situation B, dumb-ass. It's to illustrate how a logical argument does not necessarily follow.

That depends on how drunk they get.

The words "smashed" and "drunk", not to mention "throwing up", as mentioned earlier by someone else, obviously imply significant inebriation.

It isn't obvious actually as you've been using the word "drunk" in the worst possible context, example: "Everyone who gets drunk is putting themselves at risk of becoming an alcoholic".

So? In the context of a debate where people are using the word "smashed", it's obvious that I mean binge drinking, heavy drinking, etc.

Of course it's relevant. “Drunk” doesn't encompass all possible states of intoxication. Drinking to the point of blindness IS stupid for example, while getting drunk to the point of laughing at silly things isn't.

Merriam-Webster: drunk (adjective form):
1 a : having the faculties impaired by alcohol b : having a level of alcohol in the blood that exceeds a maximum prescribed by law <legally drunk>
2 : dominated by an intense feeling <drunk with rage>
3 : of, relating to, or caused by intoxication : DRUNKEN

"Drunk" means you have had enough to have your faculties significantly impaired at a minimum.

Why are you arguing this topic in a black and white fashion?

Strawman fallacy.

Really? So will you acknowledge then that getting drunk isn't necessarily stupid?

I will acknowledge that having one drink isn't necessarily stupid. Getting "smashed", on the other hand, IS stupid.

Your arguments are based on the "how DARE you say that something I do is stupid" form of reasoning, not any kind of actual logic.

[BoredShirtless]

The point is you over extended yourself with that smoking analogy.

How? The analogy still applies; your "logic" is disproven by that case. Don't you understand what analogies are for? It's not to argue that situation A is exactly identical to situation B, dumb-ass. It's to illustrate how a logical argument does not necessarily follow.

And did I say your smoking analogy doesn't fit because it isn't the same? I said you over extended yourself, just like I did with my soccer analogy. Let me make it clear once again: starting on cigarettes is stupid because they are so much more addictive and the chances are you WILL get hooked. The chances of getting hooked on alcohol are NOT the same, hence I can argue that it isn't stupid to get drunk once in a while from the "additive" POV.

The words "smashed" and "drunk", not to mention "throwing up", as mentioned earlier by someone else, obviously imply significant inebriation.

It isn't obvious actually as you've been using the word "drunk" in the worst possible context, example: "Everyone who gets drunk is putting themselves at risk of becoming an alcoholic".

So? In the context of a debate where people are using the word "smashed", it's obvious that I mean binge drinking, heavy drinking, etc.

What do you mean "so"? You earlier said:

While it's obvious that you can't talk to an alcoholic about alcoholism because he is incapable of seeing reason, that doesn't change the facts

In response to me defending people who get drunk once in a while. It's not my fault that your cockiness resulted in some miscommunication.

Of course it's relevant. “Drunk” doesn't encompass all possible states of intoxication. Drinking to the point of blindness IS stupid for example, while getting drunk to the point of laughing at silly things isn't.

Merriam-Webster: drunk (adjective form):
1 a : having the faculties impaired by alcohol b : having a level of alcohol in the blood that exceeds a maximum prescribed by law <legally drunk>
2 : dominated by an intense feeling <drunk with rage>
3 : of, relating to, or caused by intoxication : DRUNKEN

"Drunk" means you have had enough to have your faculties significantly impaired at a minimum.

You ought to look up minimum while you're over there because at a minimum it is impaired, not significantly impaired.

Strawman fallacy.

Really? So will you acknowledge then that getting drunk isn't necessarily stupid?

I will acknowledge that having one drink isn't necessarily stupid. Getting "smashed", on the other hand, IS stupid.

Smashed to the point of possibly drowning in your own vomit while sleeping? Fine. But hold off on dumping all people who get drunk into that result set.

Your arguments are based on the "how DARE you say that something I do is stupid" form of reasoning, not any kind of actual logic.

No, my argument is based on degree.

[BoredShirtless]

The chances of getting hooked on alcohol are NOT the same,

Shit, I meant "not in the same ball park...too far away to be used in an analogy".

[BoredShirtless]

The chances of getting hooked on alcohol are NOT the same,

Shit, I meant "not in the same ball park...too far away to be used in an analogy".

THE analogy. I'm on fire tonight!

[Embracer Of Darkness]

imo attempting to convince an alcoholic that binge drinking & excessive drinking might just be bad for them is alot like attempting to convince a fundie that the bible might just be wrong.

So we're alcoholics now? Funny, I didn't think getting drunk one night every two weeks counted. Not to mention that I've not touched alcohol in three weeks anyway.

[General Zod]

imo attempting to convince an alcoholic that binge drinking & excessive drinking might just be bad for them is alot like attempting to convince a fundie that the bible might just be wrong.

So we're alcoholics now? Funny, I didn't think getting drunk one night every two weeks counted. Not to mention that I've not touched alcohol in three weeks anyway.

learn to read, cunt. i've already stated in response to BS making THE EXACT SAME ACCUSATION that i was not referring to anyone on this board.

[Embracer Of Darkness]

Reckless, yes, but not stupid. I would consider it stupid if it caused harm to others though.

So you don't see recklessness as stupid?

No, I do not. I see recklessness as something which is fun as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. It makes this dull, boring, spoon feeding fucking society exciting, if you must know.

I also go to black metal gigs and partake in a few extreme sports. I must be an absolute fucking moron! Or maybe I'm doing that I think is fun.

No, you're an absolute fucking moron.

In your fucking opinion, dickhead. Some of us just simply like doing risky things, as long as they don't harm others. Oh well, if I'm an "absolute fucking moron" for doing those things, then maybe I think you're "absolutely fucking boring". Fucking jackass.

Some of us aren't affraid to step outside our own houses, so don't judge us on your paranoid fucking candyland lifestyle.

False dilemma fallacy. Get back to me when you grow a brain.

And what about all the times you clearly said "If you need alcohol to have fun then you're sad" or whatever? Fuck you.