Fuck DuWayne Bridges (Hooray Gourmet Bottle Bill)

[GH2001]

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.

ZACK LEE

Do you know how many things would be banned with that stone aged logic?

[Kaos]

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?

Show me what benefit alcohol provides. 

"I like it" is not a benefit.  RWS likes fucking goats. 

You're at strike 41 so far and haven't come close to touching the pitches.  You're flailing at air.

Still waiting. 

Will be here a while. 

 

[Kaos]

ZACK LEE

Do you know how many things would be banned with that stone aged logic?

No goddamit.  Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago. 

A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others.  '

If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point. 

You have none. 

Strike 44.  I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here. 

[AUChizad]

I even get NASCAR.  You run the risk of dying every time you get in there but you do it for reward and entertainment. 

How the fuck is this different? You've determined that entertainment value, is really no value whatsoever, remember? Basketballs and such.

And your argument that "At least if you're starving a Big Mac will prolong your life that much more." And beer will not? There is grain and water in beer.

No goddamit.  Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago. 

A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others.  '

If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point. 

You have none. 

Strike 44.  I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here. 

So by Kaos law of logic, things can only be harmful if their ingestion causes impairment.

Guns aren't dangerous because they're not narcotic? OK...

[GH2001]

No goddamit.  Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago. 

A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others.  '

If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point. 

You have none. 

Strike 44.  I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here.

You don't get to make the law of the land as you see fit per your personal opinions.

And NO inanimate object in and of itself can impair someone. It takes action or abuse by the dumb person for it to be harmful. 

ABUSE and HARMFUL behavior because of alcohol is already illegal. What part of that aren't you getting?

[Kaos]

How the fuck is this different? You've determined that entertainment value, is really no value whatsoever, remember? Basketballs and such.

NASCAR drivers don't kill thousands of spectators.  It's not that hard, Chizad. 

And your argument that "At least if you're starving a Big Mac will prolong your life that much more." And beer will not? There is grain and water in beer.So by Kaos law of logic, things can only be harmful if their ingestion causes impairment.

Guns aren't dangerous because they're not narcotic? OK...

Beer won't prolong your life.  In fact it may hasten your death because of the diuretic affect.  Nice try, though.

Guns are dangerous. Never denied that at all.  You keep bouncing back to that argument as if its your Holy Grail, but it's absolutely ridiculous and has zero merit. 

A person can't sit down at a bar, buy six or seven pistols, get in the car and be so impaired by said purchases that he plows through a wall, runs over a family of four, or otherwise does harm to himself or others.  Until the guns themselves cause harm to a person's state of mind, his ability to function, his consciousness or his decision-making abilities this is a dead fucking duck and you can quit yanking its feathers.

[Kaos]

You don't get to make the law of the land as you see fit per your personal opinions.

And NO inanimate object in and of itself can impair someone. It takes action or abuse by the dumb person for it to be harmful. 

ABUSE and HARMFUL behavior because of alcohol is already illegal. What part of that aren't you getting?

Still waiting on a benefit of alcohol.

Never going to get one.   

Instead you'll just keep making asinine rationalizations for it. 

Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times.   Any amount is therefore abuse of your system. 

[wesfau2]

Still waiting on a benefit of alcohol.

Never going to get one.   

Instead you'll just keep making asinine rationalizations for it. 

Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times.   Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.

Why is a product's benefit to society the standard for legality? 

[JR4AU]

Still waiting on a benefit of alcohol.

Never going to get one.   

Instead you'll just keep making asinine rationalizations for it. 

Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times.   Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.

Pffft

[AUChizad]

Beer won't prolong your life.  In fact it may hasten your death because of the diuretic affect.  Nice try, though.
O RLY?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/25/my-take-what-i-learned-from-my-46-day-beer-only-fast/

Guns are dangerous. Never denied that at all.  You keep bouncing back to that argument as if its your Holy Grail, but it's absolutely ridiculous and has zero merit. 

Hilariously followed by:

A person can't sit down at a bar, buy six or seven pistols, get in the car and be so impaired by said purchases that he plows through a wall, runs over a family of four, or otherwise does harm to himself or others.  Until the guns themselves cause harm to a person's state of mind, his ability to function, his consciousness or his decision-making abilities this is a dead fucking duck and you can quit yanking its feathers.

So it's the ingestion you have a problem with? Because they aren't exactly the same thing, the argument is irrelevant? No, you can't buy any guns at a bar, because that's not where guns are sold. You probably can't buy beer at a gun store either. But wherever you buy it, you can get in your car and proceed with a drive-by taking out hundreds of innocent bystanders. The guns themselves don't kill people. The beer itself doesn't kill people. People abusing them and making poor decisions with them, does.

This is seriously the worst argument on any topic I have ever seen by anyone ever.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

No goddamit. Already thrown that stupid argument out on its ass a long time ago. 

A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others.  '

If licking bullets caused people to behave irrationally and kill or injure other people then you'd have a point. 

You have none. 

Strike 44.  I'm losing count with all the whiffing going on here.

I hope about 22 of those strikes are yours.

Throwing the argument out doesn't make it invalid.

[AUChizad]

It serves no purpose whatsoever other than evil.  Period.

Alcohol -- even the smallest amount -- when ingested begins to impair motor function and slow reaction times.   Any amount is therefore abuse of your system.

So when Jesus Christ himself instructs his followers to drink wine symbolic of his blood...that was evil? He turned water into evil-juice?

Jesus himself "abused his system" with evil-juice in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.

Was apostle Paul evil? "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oinos] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities" - 1 Timothy 5:23

God made "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" - Psalm 104:15

Getting drunk at the Lord's supper, seems to be pretty acceptable, unless you're not sharing. "for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." - 1 Corinthians 11:21

I could go on forever with this, but I think you get my point (or boorishly refuse).

[AU_Tiger_2000]

So when Jesus Christ himself instructs his followers to drink wine symbolic of his blood...that was evil? He turned water into evil-juice?

Jesus himself "abused his system" with evil-juice in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.

Was apostle Paul evil? "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oinos] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities" - 1 Timothy 5:23

God made "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" - Psalm 104:15

Getting drunk at the Lord's supper, seems to be pretty acceptable, unless you're not sharing. "for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." - 1 Corinthians 11:21

I could go on forever with this, but I think you get my point (or boorishly refuse).

From now on I am referring to alcohol as evil juice.

[Vandy Vol]

A gun, in and of itself, does not injure, harm or impair a person's ability to make rational, reasonable judgments or impact their response times so that they are a danger to themselves and others.

Whereas a can of Miller Lite, in and of itself, jumps into my car and drives it recklessly on the wrong side of the highway?  Or forces itself down my throat in such quantities that my abilities are greatly impaired?

You're missing one important thing:  choice.  Just like I can choose to irresponsibly and illegally use a gun, I can also choose to irresponsibly and illegally use alcohol.  Doesn't mean that I have to use it in that manner, and the mere presence of alcohol as a legal choice doesn't mean that I will.  It's all about how you choose to use it.

Your argument assumes that alcohol can not be responsibly used, and that it will always result in harmful aftermath; that's simply not the case.

All of your examples (such as a person buying 6 beers in a bar and then driving) require that the person make a secondary choice aside from merely drinking alcohol.  Buying 6 pistols doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to shoot a pistol at someone can.  Drinking 6 beers doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to drive after doing so can.

It's not the alcohol itself that is killing anyone; it's the choices that are made after alcohol consumption.  Similarly, it's not a gun itself that kills anyone; it's a person's choice to shoot a gun.

[Godfather]

What benefits does alcohol provide (regardless what size container it comes in) that offset its negative effects? 

Why do you hate fat chicks?

[Kaos]

Why is a product's benefit to society the standard for legality?

Didn't say legal.  It is legal. 

I'd prefer it all to be destroyed and the ability to make it forgotten. 

I'm not an idiot, the shit is way too entrenched now for any legalization efforts to succeed.  It's not going away.

I'm merely asking why it's necessary.  And no one can ever, ever, ever answer that. 

It's not. 

And since it kills people (proven), addicts them (proven), destroys families and careers (proven) I just have to wonder why it's so vehemently defended. 

The anti-smoking push has worked better than expected.  It's a brilliant campaign that's taken something that used to be considered normal and routine and made those who do it pariahs. 

At some point the same tactics will be used to shame people out of drinking.  I'll be on that bus if I'm around to see it come to pass.

[Kaos]

Hilariously followed by:
So it's the ingestion you have a problem with? Because they aren't exactly the same thing, the argument is irrelevant? No, you can't buy any guns at a bar, because that's not where guns are sold. You probably can't buy beer at a gun store either. But wherever you buy it, you can get in your car and proceed with a drive-by taking out hundreds of innocent bystanders. The guns themselves don't kill people. The beer itself doesn't kill people. People abusing them and making poor decisions with them, does.

This is seriously the worst argument on any topic I have ever seen by anyone ever.

I can't help it if you flatly refuse to acknowledge the obvious. 

Does ownership of a gun cause physical impairment or make you do things you would not otherwise do by interfering with your mental acuity or ability to respond coherently?   When that happens, get back to me. 

Otherwise?  I already 10-4'd ya. 

[Kaos]

So when Jesus Christ himself instructs his followers to drink wine symbolic of his blood...that was evil? He turned water into evil-juice?

Jesus himself "abused his system" with evil-juice in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.

Was apostle Paul evil? "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oinos] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities" - 1 Timothy 5:23

God made "wine that maketh glad the heart of man" - Psalm 104:15

Getting drunk at the Lord's supper, seems to be pretty acceptable, unless you're not sharing. "for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." - 1 Corinthians 11:21

I could go on forever with this, but I think you get my point (or boorishly refuse).

Not the same thing at all. 

Jesus didn't hit the road in his souped up donkey and run over anybody. 

Your point is out of bounds and yet ANOTHER swing and miss.  Not even close. 

[Kaos]

Whereas a can of Miller Lite, in and of itself, jumps into my car and drives it recklessly on the wrong side of the highway?  Or forces itself down my throat in such quantities that my abilities are greatly impaired?

You're missing one important thing:  choice.  Just like I can choose to irresponsibly and illegally use a gun, I can also choose to irresponsibly and illegally use alcohol.  Doesn't mean that I have to use it in that manner, and the mere presence of alcohol as a legal choice doesn't mean that I will.  It's all about how you choose to use it.

Your argument assumes that alcohol can not be responsibly used, and that it will always result in harmful aftermath; that's simply not the case.

All of your examples (such as a person buying 6 beers in a bar and then driving) require that the person make a secondary choice aside from merely drinking alcohol.  Buying 6 pistols doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to shoot a pistol at someone can.  Drinking 6 beers doesn't kill anyone, but making the choice to drive after doing so can.

It's not the alcohol itself that is killing anyone; it's the choices that are made after alcohol consumption.  Similarly, it's not a gun itself that kills anyone; it's a person's choice to shoot a gun.

Stupid argument and completely invalid. 

Alcohol, even when used as intended, causes impairment.  It interferes with a person's motor skills, ability to make rational judgments, ability to discern reality.  It numbs the senses, slows reaction times.  Even when used in moderation it causes damage to a person's internal organs.

Does every one who drinks choose to do something stupid?  Nope.  But if you HAVE been drinking, your ability to make that choice is diminished. 

Everybody drives better when they have just a little buzz.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen people walk out after a beer or two or three, get in the car and drive off.  Whether they want to admit it or not, that FIRST fucking beer interfered with their ability to react and reason. 

When holding a gun causes those impairments then by all means, let's talk.

Alcohol serves no purpose.  Everything else on earth serves one.  Just not that. 

If you choose to drink alcohol, you are choosing impairment.  Period. 

I occasionally choose it myself.  Unlike many of you, I don't need a goddam 44 oz bottle to make it work.  And I don't care if I ever do or don't again.   It has no place in my life. 

You're now 10-4'd too. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Stupid argument and completely invalid. 

Alcohol, even when used as intended, causes impairment.  It interferes with a person's motor skills, ability to make rational judgments, ability to discern reality.  It numbs the senses, slows reaction times. 

When holding a gun causes those impairments then by all means, let's talk. 

If you choose to drink alcohol, you are choosing impairment.  Period. 

You're now 10-4'd too.

When I stay up until 2am playing videogames, I've chosen impairment at work the next day. 

Imbibing alcohol does not automatically cause drastic, irrational accidents to occur.  For example, I can drink three glasses of wine and still be in control of my actions.  I can drink 40oz of beer and still be in control of my actions.  I am still well-aware at that point that I need to hand my keys to somebody sober. 

It's not impairment that makes something unnecessary.