Fuck DuWayne Bridges (Hooray Gourmet Bottle Bill)

[Kaos]

Guns. You are opposed to gun control, no?

Innocent bystanders NEVER die from bullets? My dead uncle begs to differ.

Guns are already controlled somewhat.

And no, I'm not opposed to it.  I'd be in favor of background checks more extensive than we have now. I'd be in favor of requiring those purchasing guns to complete safety training courses before taking possession of the weapons.  I'd be in favor of limiting the number and type of firearms people can have.  Be in favor of taking guns away from anyone convicted of a felony, anyone found to have used a firearm in an unsafe manner (shooting into the sky for New Year's, for instance), removing guns from anyone discovered to have stored them improperly.  I'm in favor of fucking somebody up sentencing wise if they have an unregistered/unlicensed gun in their possession. 

But STILL, nobody's ever bought one too many pistols and crashed into a family, killing everybody. 

Yes, deranged people get guns.  But the guns themselves DO NOT IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF THE USER TO FUNCTION. 

Comparison?  Fails. 

[Kaos]

Not to mention what is blindingly obvious to anyone with any cognitive sense of logic whatsoever.

Banning larger containers does fuck all to limit or prevent any alcohol related deaths, addictions, etc., so all of this conversation is completely pointless. All it does is limit the free market for what the types of beers that are available for adult consumption.

I would bet my last nickel that of all alcohol related deaths, abusive alcoholics, etc., that a vast, vast majority of them are getting boozed on Heaven Hill, or Aristocrat, or some other dirt cheap liquor. Or at least Mad Dog 20/20 or Nattie Light. The college kids are not funnelling Dogfish Head Craft Brewery AprilHop IPAs. I guarantee you they're involved in less than 0.01% of accidents as well.

But that's not all it's about now, is it? We've freed the gotdamn hops!! Now you can get your Natural Light in 40s. 

Awesome! 

My point was that this entire exercise is asinine.  Bigger containers aren't the answer to anything. It's stupid.  If I had one of those guns I'd probably use it on the Free the Hops guy.   

Hey, we've got poison on sale!  And now it comes in a gallon jug.  Get ya some. 

[JR4AU]

Guns are already controlled somewhat.

And no, I'm not opposed to it.  I'd be in favor of background checks more extensive than we have now. I'd be in favor of requiring those purchasing guns to complete safety training courses before taking possession of the weapons.  I'd be in favor of limiting the number and type of firearms people can have.  Be in favor of taking guns away from anyone convicted of a felony, anyone found to have used a firearm in an unsafe manner (shooting into the sky for New Year's, for instance), removing guns from anyone discovered to have stored them improperly.  I'm in favor of fucking somebody up sentencing wise if they have an unregistered/unlicensed gun in their possession. 

But STILL, nobody's ever bought one too many pistols and crashed into a family, killing everybody. 

Yes, deranged people get guns.  But the guns themselves DO NOT IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF THE USER TO FUNCTION. 

Comparison?  Fails.

       

[GH2001]

Fuck a MONKEY are you being purposely obtuse?

There is evidence that shit in Big Macs causes heart disease.  If I choose to eat one I do so with that knowledge.  Eating that Big Mac isn't going to impair my senses to the point that I run my car into a wall, though.  It's not going to make me spend all my money and abandon my family. 

Lots of stuff is bad for us. We know it.  If we choose to partake, we're hurting ourselves.  We're not hurting other people, people we don't know, people who did nothing to deserve the carnage we rack up. 

But even a Big Mac serves some moderate function.  If you're starving and eat one it will delay your death. 

Booze gonna do that for you? 

It serves no purpose whatsoever other than evil.  Period.

Alcohol serves a function as being recreational and can also be medicinal if used properly (red wine, certain beers) due to the polyphenols that exist in the ingredients and sometimes becoming magnified with the fermentation process. You missed Wes' point that prohibition was a huge failure on many levels and if anything, made the issue worse. More people were killed because of alcohol during that time on average than non prohibition times. (before and after) Prohibition created a black market much like drugs today and increased gang warfare. You ban the shit, and watch how lovely things hit the fan and splatter. And people will still get their booze and the possibility of driving drunk or beating your wife still exists. Banning it solves nothing.

BTW - it IS illegal already to get boozed/drunk and drive. It's also illegal to run over someone under the influence.

[Kaos]

Alcohol serves a function as being recreational and can also be medicinal if used properly (red wine, certain beers) due to the polyphenols that exist in the ingredients and sometimes becoming magnified with the fermentation process. You missed Wes' point that prohibition was a huge failure on many levels and if anything, made the issue worse. More people were killed because of alcohol during that time on average than non prohibition times. (before and after) Prohibition created a black market much like drugs today and increased gang warfare. You ban the shit, and watch how lovely things hit the fan and splatter. And people will still get their booze and the possibility of driving drunk or beating your wife still exists. Banning it solves nothing.

BTW - it IS illegal already to get boozed/drunk and drive. It's also illegal to run over someone under the influence.

Yes.  I know prohibition failed.  Already agreed.

But the answer definitely isn't bigger bottles. 

[AUChizad]

Yes.  I know prohibition failed.  Already agreed.

But the answer definitely isn't bigger bottles.

It definitely isn't smaller bottles, either.

[Shug Dye]

It definitely isn't smaller bottles, either.

Werd.

[Saniflush]

Yes.  I know prohibition failed.  Already agreed.

But the answer definitely isn't bigger bottles.

Bigger cans?

[Vandy Vol]

Bigger cans?

Bigger kegs.

[Kaos]

This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side. 

Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't.  And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too. 


I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)

"Entertainment?" -- PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.   Would we allow the production of basketballs if they killed 10,000 people a year and half of those weren't even using them?  Why fuck no.  There would be a national basketball ban.  People would march in the streets in opposition to the production and distribution of basketballs.  The entertainment argument can be shoved up the ass in a 44 oz bottle.

"Health Benefits" -- PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.  So some old bitch has slightly lower cholesterol or her heart valves are slightly improved (not enough to add years on her life, mind you) and that outweighs the 10,000 -- many completely innocent and uninvolved -- who were killed?  It makes up for the hundreds of thousands of familes, careers and lives ruined?  Fuck all. 

If there were no such thing as alcohol the general quality of life will not degrade.  In fact, it would improve (and IMO improve vastly). 

It's useless, pointless and weak. 

[wesfau2]

This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side. 

Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't.  And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too. 


I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)

"Entertainment?" -- PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.   Would we allow the production of basketballs if they killed 10,000 people a year and half of those weren't even using them?  Why fuck no.  There would be a national basketball ban.  People would march in the streets in opposition to the production and distribution of basketballs.  The entertainment argument can be shoved up the ass in a 44 oz bottle.

"Health Benefits" -- PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.  So some old bitch has slightly lower cholesterol or her heart valves are slightly improved (not enough to add years on her life, mind you) and that outweighs the 10,000 -- many completely innocent and uninvolved -- who were killed?  It makes up for the hundreds of thousands of familes, careers and lives ruined?  Fuck all. 

If there were no such thing as alcohol the general quality of life will not degrade.  In fact, it would improve (and IMO improve vastly). 

It's useless, pointless and weak.

On any other topic and coming from someone else, you would have a field day with the weak "argument" you've put forth in this thread.

[JR4AU]

This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side. 



I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)

I don't have to offer any redeeming value for something like alcohol to claim it as my right to enjoy it as I please, and not have the government take it away because SOME people can't use it "properly".   

[Saniflush]

I don't have to offer any redeeming value for something like alcohol to claim it as my right to enjoy it as I please, and not have the government take it away because SOME people can't use it "properly".

I agree. 
I want my cocaine back.

[GH2001]

This is an argument that going in I know I have no chance of bringing anybody to my side. 

Some babies have to have their pacifier so they sqawk and scream when they don't.  And they want even bigger pacifiers. Some adults have to have their pacifier too. 


I win every time, however, because no one can offer any remote benefit of alcohol that comes anywhere near offsetting the damage it does (and does even to those who use it "properly" as if there is actually such a thing.)

"Entertainment?" -- PFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.   Would we allow the production of basketballs if they killed 10,000 people a year and half of those weren't even using them?  Why fuck no.  There would be a national basketball ban.  People would march in the streets in opposition to the production and distribution of basketballs.  The entertainment argument can be shoved up the ass in a 44 oz bottle.

"Health Benefits" -- PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT.  So some old bitch has slightly lower cholesterol or her heart valves are slightly improved (not enough to add years on her life, mind you) and that outweighs the 10,000 -- many completely innocent and uninvolved -- who were killed?  It makes up for the hundreds of thousands of familes, careers and lives ruined?  Fuck all. 

If there were no such thing as alcohol the general quality of life will not degrade.  In fact, it would improve (and IMO improve vastly). 

It's useless, pointless and weak.

Again, I don't really have to have a valid reason in your eyes to enjoy it. My right to enjoy it responsibly (as long as I am not harming anyone in the process of enjoying it) outweighs your want to ban it. End of story. I can't you of all people would want this kind of govt intrusion. My guess is that some event spurred this way of thinking with you since it's very atypical of you. Harming someone in the process of enjoying it? Already ILLEGAL.

[Kaos]

I don't have to offer any redeeming value for something like alcohol to claim it as my right to enjoy it as I please, and not have the government take it away because SOME people can't use it "properly".

Just so we're clear:




If it were ANY other product, any product at all and that product were tied to the addictive properties, the level of impariment, the significant health damage and the potential for carnage?  It would be banned everybody would be on board. 

But cai'nt nobody take muh dayum beer.  I wants it inna 40 pound box, too. 


My argument is perfect.  It's not weak. 

Your asinine comparisons to guns?  Ridiculous efforts to equate alcohol to Big Macs?  Complete and total failure to derive one single societal benefit that has any possibility of outweighing the pervasive negative effects?  All pathetic and some of the weakest efforts I've ever seen. 

It all boils down to the absurd point above, which can be condensed thusly:

AH LAHK MUH GADDAM BEER, AN' I AIN'T GONNA STOP DRANKIN' IT. 

Doesn't matter who it kills.  It's okay becaus YOU like it.   Worst argument ever.

Fuck all.  Just. Fuck. All. 

[AWK]

The problem here is: (and no offense Kaos, seriously) Kaos can't separate his personal hatred and reasons for hating Alcohol to make a logical conclusion on the matter.

[Kaos]

The problem here is: (and no offense Kaos, seriously) Kaos can't separate his personal hatred and reasons for hating Alcohol to make a logical conclusion on the matter.

My conclusion is PERFECTLY logical. 

It provides no benefits.  It causes harm. 

I'm still waiting for one single thing, one benefit alcohol provides that makes it worth the utter carnage it causes.  You won't because you cant.  You'll make every other argument in the world, stomp your feet and end up crying about your pacifier.  But you won't and can't show me a risk/reward relationship that makes alcohol worth the risk. 

War?  Yep.  I get it.  People die.
NASA?  People died to get us to the moon.  It was worth it. 
Dangerous jobs like underwater welding?  Sure.  It's a risk. 
I even get NASCAR.  You run the risk of dying every time you get in there but you do it for reward and entertainment. 

Booze?  PFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT.  I don't give a fiddling fuck how much you like your afternoon brew and the numbing effect it has on your senses.  Your enjoyment isn't worth the lives it takes.  Not today, not tomorrow and not ever. 

[GH2001]

Just so we're clear:




If it were ANY other product, any product at all and that product were tied to the addictive properties, the level of impariment, the significant health damage and the potential for carnage?  It would be banned everybody would be on board. 

But cai'nt nobody take muh dayum beer.  I wants it inna 40 pound box, too. 


My argument is perfect.  It's not weak. 

Your asinine comparisons to guns?  Ridiculous efforts to equate alcohol to Big Macs?  Complete and total failure to derive one single societal benefit that has any possibility of outweighing the pervasive negative effects?  All pathetic and some of the weakest efforts I've ever seen. 

It all boils down to the absurd point above, which can be condensed thusly:

AH LAHK MUH GADDAM BEER, AN' I AIN'T GONNA STOP DRANKIN' IT. 

Doesn't matter who it kills.  It's okay becaus YOU like it.   Worst argument ever.

Fuck all.  Just. Fuck. All.

Now YOU'RE being obtuse. And you can stop with the redneck broad brush. You have no right to ban a product that is safe and harmless when used responsibly, because of a few who abuse it in a harmful way. AWK is right - you have a personal hatred for the stuff for some reason and objectively is getting tossed out the window. There are TONS of things that are safe until abused. You certainly don't go banning anything that meets that criteria. People get stressed out, over work and get very little sleep and cross the center line - you gonna ban insomnia and 60 hour work weeks?

[Saniflush]

I'm still waiting for one single thing, one benefit alcohol provides that makes it worth the utter carnage it causes. 

Helps fat chicks get laid.

[Vandy Vol]

You're utilizing a harm vs. benefits analysis, and suggesting that something which causes more harm than good should be banned.

I don't know the statistics on deaths by gun, but I would imagine more people are killed with guns illegally than people killed with guns legally (self defense and law enforcement).

Using your logic, guns should be banned because more people use them in a harmful manner than people who use them in a non-harmful manner.