Drunken dad asks 11 year old Son to Drive

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-03-18 12:15pm

salm wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:Dogs will also drink anti-freeze because of the sweet taste yet it kills them. Natural? yes. Stupid? Absofuckinglutely.
false analogy. drinking anti-freeze is is bad for your body. getting wasted is not bad for your body if you don´t do it on a regular basis. at least it´s not bad on a relevant scale.

so you ADMIT that it is harmful!!! Thanks for proving the point that those that drink large amounts ARE idiots. You won't get cancer from one cigarette either. does this invalidate all the known facts about the hazzards of tobacco?

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2004-03-18 12:17pm

Darth_Zod wrote:are you intentionally being idiotic? read the other part of my argument where i stated that it's a necessary biological function required to function, becoming intoxicated is not.

Okay, so you're partially against drinking because it's not a biological function? Better get rid of your central heating and computer then, and go live in the woods.

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2004-03-18 12:18pm

Darth Servo wrote:
salm wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:Dogs will also drink anti-freeze because of the sweet taste yet it kills them. Natural? yes. Stupid? Absofuckinglutely.
false analogy. drinking anti-freeze is is bad for your body. getting wasted is not bad for your body if you don´t do it on a regular basis. at least it´s not bad on a relevant scale.
so you ADMIT that it is harmful!!! Thanks for proving the point that those that drink large amounts ARE idiots. You won't get cancer from one cigarette either. does this invalidate all the known facts about the hazzards of tobacco?

We never denied that alcohol doesn't cause bodily harm. We did however say that it's a personal choice. Tobacco is known to injure people around the smoker, drinking alcohol doesn't kill the liver of the person next to you.

Try again.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-03-18 12:19pm

salm wrote:you fail to notice that the autobahn is not the argument. the argument was "the speed-alcohol analogy is not useful"

The argument was driving too fast is dangerous and in 99.999999% of the worlds roads driving speed IS highly regulated for that very reason. The one or two exceptions do NOT disprove the rule. Similarlrly, the people who DON'T have any harmful problems from getting drunk does NOT disprove the increased number of people who DO.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 12:19pm

Embracer Of Darkness wrote:
Not all drunk people are dangerous, it's that fucking simple. The way some of you keep demonizing the act of getting drunk is making you sound almost fundie-like.
mind pointing out where i said all drunk people are dangerous? instead of taking cheap pot shots, how about actually refuting my arguments as to why being intoxicated is bad instead of just saying it's fun therefore it's acceptable?
We've already pointed out many times that many people don't act like idiots when they're drunk. What more do you want us to do?

actually pay attention to what i'm saying, maybe. which is that people are MORE LIKELY to act idiotic when drunk, and that being drunk in and of itself is idiotic. no, not all people do stupid things when drunk, as some have better control then others. but this does not invalidate the point that a vast number DO act like idiots and do stupid things while drunk.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 12:20pm

Darth_Zod wrote: are you intentionally being idiotic? read the other part of my argument where i stated that it's a necessary biological function required to function, becoming intoxicated is not.

i know. that´s why i told you what i think about your way of measuring something´s stupidity degree. you might want to read the relevant post again.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-03-18 12:21pm

Embracer Of Darkness wrote:We never denied that alcohol doesn't cause bodily harm.

Incorrect. Salm tried to do precisely that and then back peddaled.

[We did however say that it's a personal choice. Tobacco is known to injure people around the smoker, drinking alcohol doesn't kill the liver of the person next to you.[/quote]Nice red herring. I wasn't talking about second hand smoke. I was talking about adverse health consequences to the smoker HIMSELF.

Try again.

Good advice. Take it.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 12:22pm

Embracer Of Darkness wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:are you intentionally being idiotic? read the other part of my argument where i stated that it's a necessary biological function required to function, becoming intoxicated is not.
Okay, so you're partially against drinking because it's not a biological function? Better get rid of your central heating and computer then, and go live in the woods.

knock off with the strawman bullshit already. i'm not against drinking IN MODERATION, as i've stated previously. i am however against being drunk, which is what being intoxicated refers to.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-03-18 12:23pm

salm wrote:i know. that´s why i told you what i think about your way of measuring something´s stupidity degree. you might want to read the relevant post again.

And when did we EVER say that all stupidity was equal?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 12:25pm

Darth Servo wrote:
salm wrote:you fail to notice that the autobahn is not the argument. the argument was "the speed-alcohol analogy is not useful"
The argument was driving too fast is dangerous and in 99.999999% of the worlds roads driving speed IS highly regulated for that very reason.

nice. the autobahn still wasn´t the argument. consider it a fun fact or completely forget about it.
my argument was that your analogy was false.

The one or two exceptions do NOT disprove the rule. Similarlrly, the people who DON'T have any harmful problems from getting drunk does NOT disprove the increased number of people who DO.

i dont´t think so. speeding is highly dangerous for ALL people. drinking is higly dangerous for FEW people. hence, for everybody but these FEW, getting drunk is no wrong.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 12:26pm

Darth Servo wrote:Incorrect. Salm tried to do precisely that and then back peddaled.

bullshit! show me where i claimed that alcohol dosn´t cause bodily harm.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-18 12:28pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:as far as your other argument, intentionally making yourself stupid in and of itself is an act of stupidity.
Shut up you stupid little twit. Drinking is enjoyable and mixes well with social gatherings. Maybe you should go out and try it once before calling everyone who drinks an idiot.
if you're not going to bother refuting my argument or add anything shut the fuck up, cunt.

Ok asshole, I'll break it down to kindergarten sized chunks. You wrote the following premise: people drink in order to act stupid. Then the following conclusion: drinking is stupid.... but with no proof to tie the two together. Do you follow now, you dumb piece of shit? I couldn't refute your argument because you didn't make.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 12:29pm

Darth Servo wrote:
salm wrote:i know. that´s why i told you what i think about your way of measuring something´s stupidity degree. you might want to read the relevant post again.
And when did we EVER say that all stupidity was equal?

i don´t know if you said such a thing.
but how did you get the impression that i was thinking that you sayd that stupidity is equal?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 12:32pm

BoredShithead wrote:Ok asshole, I'll break it down to kindergarten sized chunks. You wrote the following premise: people drink in order to act stupid. Then the following conclusion: drinking is stupid.... but with no proof to tie the two together. Do you follow now, you dumb piece of shit? I couldn't refute your argument because you didn't make.

wrong again, dickless. i said being drunk was stupid, not drinking in moderation, which does not need to result in getting drunk. which everyone seems to be completely ignoring, including your sorry ignorant ass.

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2004-03-18 12:33pm

Darth_Zod wrote:actually pay attention to what i'm saying, maybe. which is that people are MORE LIKELY to act idiotic when drunk, and that being drunk in and of itself is idiotic.

Please quote where I argued against people being more likely to act idiotic when drunk. Oh, you can't. STFU.

As for "being drunk in and of itself is idiotic", I have disagreed with that. My argument against that was simply that it's only idiotic if you are prone to violence and driving when you're drunk. The negligable damage to organs is down to personal choice, almost everything in life has risk involved, except in this sugar-coated fantasy land you seem to live in.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-18 12:41pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
BoredShithead wrote:Ok asshole, I'll break it down to kindergarten sized chunks. You wrote the following premise: people drink in order to act stupid. Then the following conclusion: drinking is stupid.... but with no proof to tie the two together. Do you follow now, you dumb piece of shit? I couldn't refute your argument because you didn't make.
wrong again, dickless. i said being drunk was stupid, not drinking in moderation, which does not need to result in getting drunk. which everyone seems to be completely ignoring, including your sorry ignorant ass.

Sorry, you actually said people who get drunk do so in order to act stupid. This is a conclusion without a premise or proof. Hence, you're talking from the depths of your ass.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-03-18 12:44pm

salm wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:Incorrect. Salm tried to do precisely that and then back peddaled.
bullshit! show me where i claimed that alcohol dosn´t cause bodily harm.

I quoted it right at the top of this page.

salm wrote:false analogy. drinking anti-freeze is is bad for your body. getting wasted is not bad for your body if you don´t do it on a regular basis. at least it´s not bad on a relevant scale.

You said it didn't do any harm and then in the very same post backpeddaled to oh, well, not much harm anyway.[/quote]

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 12:47pm

borednutless wrote:Sorry, you actually said people who get drunk do so in order to act stupid. This is a conclusion without a premise or proof. Hence, you're talking from the depths of your ass.

yet again, wrong. i've cited sources showing exactly what happens after consuming certain amounts of alcohol, which are all signs of general stupidity. a good majority of drinkers that drink in order to get hammered do so for these effects.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-18 12:59pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
borednutless wrote:Sorry, you actually said people who get drunk do so in order to act stupid. This is a conclusion without a premise or proof. Hence, you're talking from the depths of your ass.
yet again, wrong. i've cited sources showing exactly what happens after consuming certain amounts of alcohol, which are all signs of general stupidity. a good majority of drinkers that drink in order to get hammered do so for these effects.

Woops! That'll teach me to butt in the middle of threads. Carry on then..

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 01:07pm

Darth Servo wrote:I quoted it right at the top of this page.

hmm.... for some reason i missed that post. anyway, i can´t see how that would be backpeddling.

darth servo wrote: so you ADMIT that it is harmful!!!

sure. it can be measured that brain cells die. big deal if it´s not on a relevant scale.

Thanks for proving the point that those that drink large amounts ARE idiots.

how would harm on a NON RELEVANT scale prove that people who get wasted once in a while are stupid?

You won't get cancer from one cigarette either. does this invalidate all the known facts about the hazzards of tobacco

well, show me how getting wasted once in a while is health damaging on a relevant scale. for something to be hazardous it must be on this scale. if it´s not on this scale it can be ignored.

salm wrote:]You said it didn't do any harm and then in the very same post backpeddaled to oh, well, not much harm anyway.

you consider correcting oneself in the very same post to prevent nitpickers from nitpicking backpeddling? we must have completely different definitions of backpeddling.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 01:09pm

sorry, i forgot to mention that i combined your last post with the missed post.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-18 01:18pm

Embracer Of Darkness wrote:As for "being drunk in and of itself is idiotic", I have disagreed with that. My argument against that was simply that it's only idiotic if you are prone to violence and driving when you're drunk.

No, people who are seriously drunk generally act like idiots at the time. This is not an unfair generalization. It is stupid to deliberately retard your central nervous system and judgement by ingesting a toxin.

The negligable damage to organs is down to personal choice, almost everything in life has risk involved, except in this sugar-coated fantasy land you seem to live in.

That's fucking stupid. Heavy alcohol use has been shown to cause brain damage, liver damage and even death. These are not "negligible" effects, moron. The brain and the liver are not organs of trivial importance. Alcohol is a toxin, and in fact, alcohol poisoning kills thousands of people every year.

According to http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

There were 19,817 Alcohol-induced deaths in the United States each year, not including motor vehicle fatalities (2001)
There were 27,035 deaths in the United States from Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis (2001)
Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis is the 12th leading cause of death in the United States (2001)

Yeah, "negligible"

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 01:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:No, people who are seriously drunk generally act like idiots at the time. This is not an unfair generalization. It is stupid to deliberately retard your central nervous system and judgement by ingesting a toxin.

but why do you consider it stupid? to my knowledge getting wasted every once in a while does not damage your brain signifacantly.
so what´s stupid about putting yourself into a temporary state of stupidity if it doesn´t damage you or others?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-18 01:31pm

salm wrote:but why do you consider it stupid? to my knowledge getting wasted every once in a while does not damage your brain signifacantly.

Read the rest of my post, for fuck's sake. Not only is alcohol addictive (hence heavy consumption of it has a high probability of making you into an addict) but it directly causes thousands of fucking deaths every year, even without including the effects of drunk driving.

so what´s stupid about putting yourself into a temporary state of stupidity if it doesn´t damage you or others?

News flash, moron: it DOES damage you, and possibly others. Did those statistics just fly right over your fucking head? Alcoholism is a severe social problem, and I presented hard data to back up that assertion while you have presented precisely JACK SHIT.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 01:45pm

Darth Wong wrote: Read the rest of my post, for fuck's sake. Not only is alcohol addictive (hence heavy consumption of it has a high probability of making you into an addict) but it directly causes thousands of fucking deaths every year, even without including the effects of drunk driving.

well, i asume that these 20.000 alcohol induced deaths were people who were regular drinkers not people who get wasted once in a while.

News flash, moron: it DOES damage you, and possibly others. Did those statistics just fly right over your fucking head? Alcoholism is a severe social problem, and I presented hard data to back up that assertion while you have presented precisely JACK SHIT.

i´m not arguing about alcoholism though.