Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Good Friday = Good Sleep!
-
22-03-2008 12:58pm#1Just wanted to say that I had a great sleep last night! Usually I'm woken up at some point by slurred shouting of some kind out on the street, or at the very least, loud inconsiderate laughter. But hey, the pubs were closed! Now, why can't they be closed for good?0
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Just wanted to say that I had a great sleep last night! Usually I'm woken up at some point by slurred shouting of some kind out on the street, or at the very least, loud inconsiderate laughter. But hey, the pubs were closed! Now, why can't they be closed for good?
Close your window at night or move to a quieter area. Don't take your anger against hooligans out on the pubs.0 -
Everyone is a potential hooligan when boozed up. You think my window is open at this time of year?? LOL0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Everyone is a potential hooligan when boozed up.
I have to disagree. Most people conduct themselves quite reasonably after going to the pub, it's just a few who get obstreperous, puke or start fights. You just have to accept this as reality, because there are people who do these unpleasant things without booze anyway.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »You think my window is open at this time of year?? LOL
Get double glazing or earplugs then.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »I have to disagree. Most people conduct themselves quite reasonably after going to the pub, it's just a few who get obstreperous, puke or start fights. You just have to accept this as reality, because there are people who do these unpleasant things without booze anyway.
Just on the topic of this thread - last night (pubs open again) I was woken up by 2 cars going, "Beeeeeeeeep beep...beep..beeeep..beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep". Looked outside my window to see two (obviously tanked) carfulls of people wheelspin off from the lights and swerve down the road.
Anyway, to reply to your post. I really can't say exactly how many people act unreasonably every night, and I don't think you can either. The point is, with alcohol, everyone is a potential trouble-maker. A friend of mine, who doesn't usually drink much, is a well liked, well respected, sound, quiet lad, told me of a night about 7 month ago, where he had a bit too much to drink (one of those nights where a friend kept refilling him). He said he vaigely remembers walking home for 3 hrs, throwing a traffic cone around the street and taking a piss on an 07 BMW. I couldn't believe it. He was quite ashamed too.
Now, you could say that MOST people are responsible gun owners, and it's the minority who kill people - it's still an unnecessary risk in society. MOST Pitbull terriers won't savage a 5 year old to death, but you just cannot predict which ones will and which ones won't.
Alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, turns people into complete a$$holes, and into animals. It's a major, major problem in society, and that fact that some people depend on it so they can 'have a laugh' isn't reason enough IMO to keep it legal.Get double glazing or earplugs then.
Close my window, get double glazing, shove earplugs in my ears. What next? Built a little soundproof booth to sleep in? How about I have people arrested for disturbing the peace at 4am? How about you just admit that it's unacceptable for people to walk around the streets in the middle of the night screaming and shouting, kicking wheely bins and beeping constantly?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Anyway, to reply to your post. I really can't say exactly how many people act unreasonably every night, and I don't think you can either. The point is, with alcohol, everyone is a potential trouble-maker.
Why not just say everyone is a potential trouble-maker even without alcohol?OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »A friend of mine, who doesn't usually drink much, is a well liked, well respected, sound, quiet lad, told me of a night about 7 month ago, where he had a bit too much to drink (one of those nights where a friend kept refilling him). He said he vaigely remembers walking home for 3 hrs, throwing a traffic cone around the street and taking a piss on an 07 BMW. I couldn't believe it. He was quite ashamed too.
He probably thought that was a great story, until you sucked all the fun out of it.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Now, you could say that MOST people are responsible gun owners, and it's the minority who kill people - it's still an unnecessary risk in society. MOST Pitbull terriers won't savage a 5 year old to death, but you just cannot predict which ones will and which ones won't.
Well hundreds of people die on the roads each year. Most drivers won't kill someone, but you just cannot predict which ones will and which won't kill someone. It's an unnecessary risk in society to drive. Let's get rid of cars (and thus getting rid of drink driving without loosing the opportunity to drink).OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, turns people into complete a$$holes, and into animals. It's a major, major problem in society, and that fact that some people depend on it so they can 'have a laugh' isn't reason enough IMO to keep it legal.
Toeing the line of the charter, you could say that using the internet in moderate to large does turns people into judgemental preachers who leap to conclusions about everybody.
First of all, whether someone is a complete [what you said] is a matter of opinion. If you think that all persons who have taken moderate to large amounts of alcohol are turned into that, then it seems to me that you are prejudiced against people who have been drinking, rather than drunk people actually being what you say.
I don't think that the "fact that some people depend on it so they can 'have a laugh'" is ever mooted as reason enough to keep alcohol legal. The main reason to keep alcohol legal is because a lot of people enjoy it in moderation.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Close my window, get double glazing, shove earplugs in my ears. What next? Built a little soundproof booth to sleep in? How about I have people arrested for disturbing the peace at 4am? How about you just admit that it's unacceptable for people to walk around the streets in the middle of the night screaming and shouting, kicking wheely bins and beeping constantly?
You're right; instead of you taking steps to get a good night's sleep, everyone else should change. It sounds to me like you live in a busy urban area, perhaps dublin city centre. The reality is that populated areas will always have lots of people living near each other, creating noise etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
To johnnyskeleton, you might want to remove the rose-tinted shades and see the place for what it is, many aspects of public life at present are spiralling out of control and its nieve to suggest otherwise.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
To johnnyskeleton, you might want to remove the rose-tinted shades and see the place for what it is, many aspects of public life at present are spiralling out of control and its nieve to suggest otherwise.
Why do you say that I wear rose tinted shades? I could just as easily say that you look at everything through a dull shade of grey (I wouldn't though, because I don't know you - I'm prepared to discuss it as an adult though if you like).0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Why not just say everyone is a potential trouble-maker even without alcohol?
Because it's not really true, is it? Alcohol makes people do things they wouldn't normally do. They are not thinking straight. Remember the story of my friend?johnnyskeleton wrote: »He probably thought that was a great story, until you sucked all the fun out of it.
No, he didn't - he was staying over at mine at the time and he told me the day after, when I noticed he was a bit out of it. I asked him what time he got in, and he told me everything that happened. He was quite ashamed of what he did in the street, and said he was lucky to have found his way back to the house.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Well hundreds of people die on the roads each year. Most drivers won't kill someone, but you just cannot predict which ones will and which won't kill someone. It's an unnecessary risk in society to drive. Let's get rid of cars (and thus getting rid of drink driving without loosing the opportunity to drink).
No, let's not get rid of cars. We need them.johnnyskeleton wrote: »First of all, whether someone is a complete [what you said] is a matter of opinion. If you think that all persons who have taken moderate to large amounts of alcohol are turned into that, then it seems to me that you are prejudiced against people who have been drinking, rather than drunk people actually being what you say.
No, I think there are times when it can quite objectively be said that somebody is acting like a complete a-hole. I'm not sure what you meant by the second thing you said, but with moderate to large doses, everyone acts in pretty much the same way. We are biochemical machines...there's no way to overcome it.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I don't think that the "fact that some people depend on it so they can 'have a laugh'" is ever mooted as reason enough to keep alcohol legal. The main reason to keep alcohol legal is because a lot of people enjoy it in moderation.
That particular argument doesn't hold water for me, because I could say that most people in the States enjoy firearms responsibly, but I'm sure you wouldn't suggest introducing them into OUR society.johnnyskeleton wrote: »You're right; instead of you taking steps to get a good night's sleep, everyone else should change. It sounds to me like you live in a busy urban area, perhaps dublin city centre. The reality is that populated areas will always have lots of people living near each other, creating noise etc.
No I don't live in a busy urban area, but almost every night, there's SOME sort of disturbance in the early hours.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Because it's not really true, is it? Alcohol makes people do things they wouldn't normally do. They are not thinking straight. Remember the story of my friend?
It's as true as suggesting that "with alcohol, everyone is a potential trouble-maker." Just because people act differently when they have consumed alcohol doesn't make them a potential trouble maker. If you take a pub of 100 people, you might get one or two trouble makers (you might get more, you might get less). If you take a football match with 100 spectators, you might get one or two trouble makers (you might get more, you might get less). If you take 100 priests you might get one or two troublemakers(you might get more, you might get less). Do you see my point?
If you want to argue that everyone who drinks is a potential trouble-maker that's fine, but from this absolutist position you must also accept that everyone is a potential trouble-maker.
Just because your friend is a troublemaker, that doesn't mean all people who drink are.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »No, let's not get rid of cars. We need them.
And let's not get rid of alcohol. We need it.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »No, I think there are times when it can quite objectively be said that somebody is acting like a complete a-hole.
I disagree with you but I'll argue on your own terms. You earlier said that "Alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, turns people into complete a$$holes, and into animals". You now say that there are times when it can objectively be said that somebody is acting like a complete a-hole. I know people who have taken moderate to large doses of alcohol of whom it could not objectively be said that they are an a-hole. Therefore, by your own logic, alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, does not always turn people into complete a$$holes, and into animals. That it can is not a reason to blame alcohol, because it's possible that they keep the a$$hole inside when sober and use alcohol as an excuse to let it out. That's not alcohol's fault, nor is it a reason for normal persons to stop drinking.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I'm not sure what you meant by the second thing you said, but with moderate to large doses, everyone acts in pretty much the same way. We are biochemical machines...there's no way to overcome it.
My point is that you obviously think people who have drunk alcohol are "a$$holes" becasue it's clear that you judge people based on that alone. You don't discriminate between normal behaviour after alcohol consumption and anti-social behaviour after alcohol consumption. That said, I don't agree that we all act pretty much the same way after alcohol.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »That particular argument doesn't hold water for me, because I could say that most people in the States enjoy firearms responsibly, but I'm sure you wouldn't suggest introducing them into OUR society.
It's a balancing act. Irish people generally are in favour of alcohol and not in favour of guns. Americans are generally in favour of both. You will find countries that are in favour of guns but not alcohol, and some that are not in favour of both. It's a question of balancing the benefits (the enjoyment of the vast majority of drinkers, the culture that has evolved around it, etc) against the ill effects (anti-social behaviour, alcohol related injuries, etc). The balance for alcohol is that the benefits outweight the ill effects, in much the same way as (I know you don't like this analogy so I'm going to exploit it) the benefits of having cars outweigh the ill effects, or the way that for Irish people the benefits of having guns don't outweigh the ill effects.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »No I don't live in a busy urban area, but almost every night, there's SOME sort of disturbance in the early hours.
Sounds odd to me. Are you a very light sleeper?0 -
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Just wanted to say that I had a great sleep last night! Usually I'm woken up at some point by slurred shouting of some kind out on the street, or at the very least, loud inconsiderate laughter. But hey, the pubs were closed! Now, why can't they be closed for good?
Be nice if all those sober morons that get up early on Saturday mornings didnt start mowing the fcuking grass at 7am every weekend.0 -
Advertisement
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »If you want to argue that everyone who drinks is a potential trouble-maker that's fine, but from this absolutist position you must also accept that everyone is a potential trouble-maker.
Sure, everyone is a potential astronaut, firefighter, doctor.... or murderer, rapist..etc.
Point is that people are FAR more likely to be troublemakers when tanked.
But the whole point of my story was the he's NOT a troublemaker. He's normally an ordinary, decent, honourable, fair and clear thinking man, but this time, when he had too much booze, he was throwing things around the street and pissing on cars. Would he have done anything like that sober? Never. Alcohol makes people unpredictable, and alters their consciousness.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Just because your friend is a troublemaker, that doesn't mean all people who drink are.
For what? See that's part of what frustrates me - simply lifting up a pint has replaced actual fun activity for a lot of people. Surely your next question isn't going to be, "Without alcohol, what else is there to do?"johnnyskeleton wrote: »And let's not get rid of alcohol. We need it.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I disagree with you but I'll argue on your own terms. You earlier said that "Alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, turns people into complete a$$holes, and into animals". You now say that there are times when it can objectively be said that somebody is acting like a complete a-hole. I know people who have taken moderate to large doses of alcohol of whom it could not objectively be said that they are an a-hole. Therefore, by your own logic, alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, does not always turn people into complete a$$holes, and into animals. That it can is not a reason to blame alcohol, because it's possible that they keep the a$$hole inside when sober and use alcohol as an excuse to let it out. That's not alcohol's fault, nor is it a reason for normal persons to stop drinking.
Fine, some people have high physical tolerance, but in general, big doses lead to being drunk, and drunk people are unpredictable, reckless, foolish and childlike. And dangerous too.johnnyskeleton wrote: »My point is that you obviously think people who have drunk alcohol are "a$$holes" becasue it's clear that you judge people based on that alone. You don't discriminate between normal behaviour after alcohol consumption and anti-social behaviour after alcohol consumption. That said, I don't agree that we all act pretty much the same way after alcohol.
Like I said, everyone has a slightly different tolerance. And no, I don't judge people based on whether or not they drink, but if they are frequently drunk in my presence and let themselves down, they'll go down a few notches in my estimation.johnnyskeleton wrote: »It's a balancing act. Irish people generally are in favour of alcohol and not in favour of guns. Americans are generally in favour of both. You will find countries that are in favour of guns but not alcohol, and some that are not in favour of both. It's a question of balancing the benefits (the enjoyment of the vast majority of drinkers, the culture that has evolved around it, etc) against the ill effects (anti-social behaviour, alcohol related injuries, etc). The balance for alcohol is that the benefits outweight the ill effects, in much the same way as (I know you don't like this analogy so I'm going to exploit it) the benefits of having cars outweigh the ill effects, or the way that for Irish people the benefits of having guns don't outweigh the ill effects.
Maybe you can highlight the benefits of alcohol.
Sort of, but I got a great sleep on Good Friday, and that inspired me to start this thread.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Sounds odd to me. Are you a very light sleeper?0 -
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Everyone is a potential hooligan when boozed up.
And every woman is a potential prostitute. Quick, lock up the whores.0 -
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Sort of, but I got a great sleep on Good Friday, and that inspired me to start this thread.
You give non-drinkers a bad name.....what a killjoy.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Sure, everyone is a potential astronaut, firefighter, doctor.... or murderer, rapist..etc.
Point is that people are FAR more likely to be troublemakers when tanked.
I disagree. Most people are not troublemakers when drunk in my opinion. Furthermore, even if you could prove that the indicence of troublemaking is higher when alcohol was consumed, you would also have to show that there is no other cause such as, for example, troublemakers using alcohol as an excuse for anti-social behvaiour, rather than alcohol being the cause. Otherwise your methodology is doubtful.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »But the whole point of my story was the he's NOT a troublemaker. He's normally an ordinary, decent, honourable, fair and clear thinking man, but this time, when he had too much booze, he was throwing things around the street and pissing on cars. Would he have done anything like that sober? Never. Alcohol makes people unpredictable, and alters their consciousness.
Is it possible that your friend has underlying issues that only came out when he was drinking? If such is the case, can you really blame alcohol when it is really only the catalyst to his behaviour.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »For what? See that's part of what frustrates me - simply lifting up a pint has replaced actual fun activity for a lot of people. Surely your next question isn't going to be, "Without alcohol, what else is there to do?"
Of course fun for you is so much more real than it is for the ignorant masses guzzling their pints. Everyone finds their own heaven, and it's not for you to decide what is and what isn't actual fun.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Fine, some people have high physical tolerance, but in general, big doses lead to being drunk, and drunk people are unpredictable, reckless, foolish and childlike. And dangerous too.
I disagree, drunk people are charasmatic, good humoured, full of energy, up for good times and don't take things too seriously. If I was in a pub and there was someone in there who looked dangerous, it would be nothing to do with them being drunk and everything to do with being dangerous for other reasons. Most peolpe when drunk become docile and relaxed in my experience.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Like I said, everyone has a slightly different tolerance. And no, I don't judge people based on whether or not they drink, but if they are frequently drunk in my presence and let themselves down, they'll go down a few notches in my estimation.
But you do judge people based on whether or not they drink, because you have made sweeping general statements about people when drunk rather than discriminating between them in any way. Furthermore, you, like your friend the paramedic, are rusing to assume that troublemakers who have had something to drink would not have been troublemakers if they hadn't been drinking, and that if someone had a drink and was involved in an accident, then the accident must have been caused by alcohol.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Maybe you can highlight the benefits of alcohol.
Moderate drinking seems to be good for the heart and circulatory system, and probably protects against type 2 diabetes and gallstones.(source)
Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, bone fractures and osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly. (source)
It is a muscle relaxant and can reduce stress.
It provides a social lubricant for people and makes people more talkative.
It provides entertainment to millions of people.
It makes women more attractive and raises confidence levels.
It tastes nice.
You get the idea.0 -
Lets see... someone who probably knows that they can't handle their drink gets drunk, and acts the maggot?OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »A friend of mine, who doesn't usually drink much, is a well liked, well respected, sound, quiet lad, told me of a night about 7 month ago, where he had a bit too much to drink (one of those nights where a friend kept refilling him). He said he vaigely remembers walking home for 3 hrs, throwing a traffic cone around the street and taking a piss on an 07 BMW.
Oh, I accept it, but the same people who act the maggot when drunk, also act the maggot when sober.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »How about you just admit that it's unacceptable for people to walk around the streets in the middle of the night screaming and shouting, kicking wheely bins and beeping constantly?
That's pure bo||ox. Actually, that's the type of bo||ox I hear from drinkers "it wasn't me, it was the alcohol...":mad:OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Alcohol makes people do things they wouldn't normally do. They are not thinking straight. Remember the story of my friend?
=-=
Oh, and if the drink & driving is a regular occurance, get a black hair dryer, and point it at people as they go by. They'll slow down:D
Or, inform the Gardai of this reular occurance. After one or two arrests, people will cop on that the Gardai "like" that area, and will avoid it. The reason: the drunks will stop going by your area.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »I disagree. Most people are not troublemakers when drunk in my opinion. Furthermore, even if you could prove that the indicence of troublemaking is higher when alcohol was consumed, you would also have to show that there is no other cause such as, for example, troublemakers using alcohol as an excuse for anti-social behvaiour, rather than alcohol being the cause. Otherwise your methodology is doubtful.
Right, so you don't think alcohol alters people's behaviour, or makes them any more likely to do something they wouldn't normally do? I think we have to clear that up.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Is it possible that your friend has underlying issues that only came out when he was drinking? If such is the case, can you really blame alcohol when it is really only the catalyst to his behaviour.
I've known him for a long time and I don't think he has underlying issues. He's the kind of person that people go to for advice. He's the kind of guy who would always do the right thing no matter what. What he did that night was totally uncharacteristic, but surprise surprise, he had too much to drink!
And what do you mean only the catalyst for his behaviour? I've heard that kind of talk before from the pro-alcolhol side. I've heard the one that goes, "Alcohol doesn't make you say or do anything you wouldn't normally do or say - it just 'loosens the tongue' and 'makes you brave'". Total nonsense, but what you're saying is coming close to that.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Of course fun for you is so much more real than it is for the ignorant masses guzzling their pints. Everyone finds their own heaven, and it's not for you to decide what is and what isn't actual fun.
If someone finds that doing speedballs is fun, fine. If somebody finds it fun to shove razor blades up their arse, that's fine. If someone enjoys firing off a few rounds in the target range, fine. The problem lies when their 'fun' starts ruining other people's lives, and alcohol makes people less in control of their actions and robs them of their inhibitions (in BAD ways). That's a fact.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I disagree, drunk people are charasmatic, good humoured, full of energy, up for good times and don't take things too seriously. If I was in a pub and there was someone in there who looked dangerous, it would be nothing to do with them being drunk and everything to do with being dangerous for other reasons. Most peolpe when drunk become docile and relaxed in my experience.
Yeah but what happens when they stand at the taxi queue, or the chipper, and someone skips ahead? What happens when one guy looks the wrong way at another guy on the street? What happens when they get into the driver's seat of their car? I'll tell you what happens: The sort of thing that doesn't normally happen in the day time.johnnyskeleton wrote: »...you, like your friend the paramedic, are rusing to assume that troublemakers who have had something to drink would not have been troublemakers if they hadn't been drinking, and that if someone had a drink and was involved in an accident, then the accident must have been caused by alcohol.
As another poster said, you must be wearing rose-tinted glasses. I just can't believe someone would be THAT must of an apologist for our heavy-drinking culture.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Moderate drinking seems to be good for the heart and circulatory system, and probably protects against type 2 diabetes and gallstones.........
................
Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer
It provides entertainment to millions of people.
It makes women more attractive and raises confidence levels.
It tastes nice.
You get the idea.
Unfortunately, too many people in Ireland and the UK don't know what it means to drink in moderation.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Right, so you don't think alcohol alters people's behaviour, or makes them any more likely to do something they wouldn't normally do? I think we have to clear that up.
I didn't say that, and with respect it seems that whenever I make a valid point or try to distinguish a point you have made, you seem to resort to changing the goal posts. I was responding to your argument that people become more troublemakers when drunk. Now you're trying to suggest I'm saying that alcohol doesn't alter people. It does have a certain effect on people, but it does not make people into troublemakers. Most people, in my opinion are not troublemakers when drunk, I don't see how that translates into "people don't change when drunk" in your mind, but it's certainly not the same.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I've known him for a long time and I don't think he has underlying issues. He's the kind of person that people go to for advice. He's the kind of guy who would always do the right thing no matter what. What he did that night was totally uncharacteristic, but surprise surprise, he had too much to drink!
Just throwing it out there. Whenever someone I know does something uncharacteristic when drinking (of the being somewhat annoyed, not the going on a traffic cone fulled rampage type), the first thing I think is what's on their mind. Usually it is something small and the drinking and uncharacteristic behaviour are a response to this, a way of letting off steam, and, provide no one gets hurt, it's probably a healthier way of dealin with things than burying it deep inside. I'll say no more about your friend though, as I've no particular issue with his behaviour, and because clearly his behaviour was anti-social and therefore of a more serious nature.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »And what do you mean only the catalyst for his behaviour? I've heard that kind of talk before from the pro-alcolhol side. I've heard the one that goes, "Alcohol doesn't make you say or do anything you wouldn't normally do or say - it just 'loosens the tongue' and 'makes you brave'". Total nonsense, but what you're saying is coming close to that.
As in someone has some issues inside, and keeps it down, then it all comes out when, for example, they go on a night out. One of the good things about alcohol is that it can help people deal with their problems in a less destructive way, but somepeople will react in that way, and I guess the alcohol brings it out. But if that is the case, it is more that your friend shouldn't drink at such times rather than the more bland all drinking is bad type of attitude.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »If someone finds that doing speedballs is fun, fine. If somebody finds it fun to shove razor blades up their arse, that's fine. If someone enjoys firing off a few rounds in the target range, fine. The problem lies when their 'fun' starts ruining other people's lives, and alcohol makes people less in control of their actions and [edit:reduces] them of their inhibitions
I agree. That's the classic Lochian concept of freedom. It is on all fours with what I have been saying - if people want to drink that's fine, they just must do it responsibly or at least in a manner not likely to cause harm. People's control might be reduced, and their inhibitions might be reduced, but good people will act responsibly (if somewhat slowly) even with the limitations that alcohol imposes.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »(in BAD ways). That's a fact.
I disagree, and whether something is good or bad can never be a fact, it must always be a matter of opinion. The only bad drinking is the part of it that has bad results. That is, in my view, a small proportion of drinkers and of the drinking culture.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Yeah but what happens when they stand at the taxi queue, or the chipper, and someone skips ahead? What happens when one guy looks the wrong way at another guy on the street? What happens when they get into the driver's seat of their car? I'll tell you what happens: The sort of thing that doesn't normally happen in the day time.
At the risk of using your own tactics against you:
Yeah sure, during the day people are honest decent and never break the law or have bad manners. No one ever skipps ahead because they are selfish, it's because they're drunk. No one ever fights because they are aggro, because they are a scumbag, because they hate someone or because they lacking self esteem. No one ever drives carelessly or dangerously when not drunk. All the world's problems, they're not due to the human condition, society or to the randomness of fate, all problems are due to alcohol. If we get rid of alcohol, we'll live in paradise. Incidentally, there are a number of countries where drinking is illegal or where people just don't drink. I take it there are no problems in those countries?OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »As another poster said, you must be wearing rose-tinted glasses. I just can't believe someone would be THAT must of an apologist for our heavy-drinking culture.
You're not being logical or engaging with my point. Is it possible that I have had 2 drinks in the pub and when I'm walking home a manhole cover which wasn't fastened on properly moves and I slip and fall. Any rational person would say the cause of the accident was the faulty manhole cover. They might say that I am, 10% at fault because if I hadn't had those two drinks I might have avoided it, or fallen in a less damaging manner. But statistically I would be counted among the alcohol related injuries. And there are some people in this world who would rush to say that it was entirely my fault because I drank any quantity of alcohol. But I say reality is more complicated than that, and that's my point. I don't look at the world through rose tinted glasses, and I assert that I see the world as it really is, warts and all. I do not see the world in black and white, nor do I take absolutist stances on things that are not so clear cut.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Unfortunately, too many people in Ireland and the UK don't know what it means to drink in moderation.
I agree with you, even one person is one too many. But as a proportion of all people who drink alcohol, they are a minority, and I don't think the negative impacts for those people justifies getting rid of the positive benefits for everyone else. Plus, people who have problems often have more problems than drinking; moreover, some people use drinking to cover over serious emotional problems and that is very unfortunate. It is not, however, a misfortune caused by drink.
I don't think there is anything more I can say as regards this issue, I would only ask that you look a little deeper and trying to look at the other side and not just the arguments that suit your agenda.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: ».....Most people, in my opinion are not troublemakers when drunk, I don't see how that translates into "people don't change when drunk" in your mind, but it's certainly not the same.
...Whenever someone I know does something uncharacteristic when drinking (of the being somewhat annoyed, not the going on a traffic cone fulled rampage type), the first thing I think is what's on their mind. Usually it is something small and the drinking and uncharacteristic behaviour are a response to this, a way of letting off steam, and, provide no one gets hurt, it's probably a healthier way of dealin with things than burying it deep inside. I'll say no more about your friend though, as I've no particular issue with his behaviour, and because clearly his behaviour was anti-social and therefore of a more serious nature.
What more can I say? The last thing you are going to do here is admit that alcohol plays any part in bad behavior. You concede that people change when drunk, but only in a positive way. If ever they do something violent, antisocial or illegal while tanked, it's never the alcohol's fault in your book. Please, tell me if I'm caricaturing your point of view, because I think I just described it perfectly.johnnyskeleton wrote: »As in someone has some issues inside, and keeps it down, then it all comes out when, for example, they go on a night out. One of the good things about alcohol is that it can help people deal with their problems in a less destructive way, but some people will react in that way, and I guess the alcohol brings it out. But if that is the case, it is more that your friend shouldn't drink at such times rather than the more bland all drinking is bad type of attitude.
So, what you are saying is that when people do antisocial or illegal things while completely tanked, it's just a coincidence, because they probably have some sort of issue in their lives at that moment, right? And the alcohol is nothing more than the spark which ignites there suppressed rage? Again, is that correct?johnnyskeleton wrote: »I agree. That's the classic Lochian concept of freedom. It is on all fours with what I have been saying - if people want to drink that's fine, they just must do it responsibly or at least in a manner not likely to cause harm. People's control might be reduced, and their inhibitions might be reduced, but good people will act responsibly (if somewhat slowly) even with the limitations that alcohol imposes.
I disagree. I think that most people, when drunk enough, will lose any concept of what acting responsibly means. I don't see how you could expect them to maintain a high level of reason in that state.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I disagree, and whether something is good or bad can never be a fact, it must always be a matter of opinion. The only bad drinking is the part of it that has bad results. That is, in my view, a small proportion of drinkers and of the drinking culture.
Always a matter of opinion? True objective morality may not exist, but we as a society always have to come to a consensus about what is good and what is bad.
Even if just 20% of drinkers on Friday or Saturday night are irresponsible, have too much...etc.. that's still a HUGE number of people. And will it be the same 20% next week, or different people?johnnyskeleton wrote: »At the risk of using your own tactics against you:
Yeah sure, during the day people are honest decent and never break the law or have bad manners. No one ever skipps ahead because they are selfish, it's because they're drunk. No one ever fights because they are aggro, because they are a scumbag, because they hate someone or because they lacking self esteem. No one ever drives carelessly or dangerously when not drunk. All the world's problems, they're not due to the human condition, society or to the randomness of fate, all problems are due to alcohol. If we get rid of alcohol, we'll live in paradise. Incidentally, there are a number of countries where drinking is illegal or where people just don't drink. I take it there are no problems in those countries?
Let me just see if I can pick some points out of this. Firstly, I spoke about skipping the queue in reference to what make kick off a fight, not in reference to selfishness.
Now, of course these 'bad' things happen in the day time, but the reason they happen more frequently at night is because there are a lot of boozed of young people roaming the streets, and that's a problem highlighted frequently in the news.johnnyskeleton wrote: »You're not being logical or engaging with my point. Is it possible that I have had 2 drinks in the pub and when I'm walking home a manhole cover which wasn't fastened on properly moves and I slip and fall. Any rational person would say the cause of the accident was the faulty manhole cover. They might say that I am, 10% at fault because if I hadn't had those two drinks I might have avoided it, or fallen in a less damaging manner. But statistically I would be counted among the alcohol related injuries. And there are some people in this world who would rush to say that it was entirely my fault because I drank any quantity of alcohol. But I say reality is more complicated than that, and that's my point. I don't look at the world through rose tinted glasses, and I assert that I see the world as it really is, warts and all. I do not see the world in black and white, nor do I take absolutist stances on things that are not so clear cut.
You're right, people who fall off bridges or into manholes when pissed, or kill people with their cars (almost nightly) or lie on A&E beds in the middle of the night shouting about god knows what, all must have pent up rage because of issues in their lives, and the fact that they are legless is just a coincidence, at least we must assume so until further research is carried out.
Sorry if that seems disrespectful, but I think it's a fair mirror of what you have been saying.johnnyskeleton wrote: »g
I agree with you, even one person is one too many. But as a proportion of all people who drink alcohol, they are a minority, and I don't think the negative impacts for those people justifies getting rid of the positive benefits for everyone else. Plus, people who have problems often have more problems than drinking; moreover, some people use drinking to cover over serious emotional problems and that is very unfortunate. It is not, however, a misfortune caused by drink.
Have you never heard radio programmes like liveline (with Joe Duffy) where people pour their hearts out and tell of how alcohol ruined their life in every conceivable way? Do you really think that half of the wife beaters out there would do it sober, only to send her flowers the next day? Some would, but I'd bet my life that most wouldn't. How about those teenagers from Blackrock College - would they have killed that guy in the street sober? No, they probably would have walked away.
I've had trouble in my extended family with alcohol, and from what I've seen, it's a drug that turns the clock in people's minds back to caveman days. Whether or not people do anything stupid while pissed is 50% circumstance and 50% related to how much they've had, and we all know that after one, it's easy to have two..etc..johnnyskeleton wrote: »I don't think there is anything more I can say as regards this issue, I would only ask that you look a little deeper and trying to look at the other side and not just the arguments that suit your agenda.
After living here for 24 years (all my life) I think I have a pretty good grasp of the issue.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »What more can I say? The last thing you are going to do here is admit that alcohol plays any part in bad behavior. You concede that people change when drunk, but only in a positive way. If ever they do something violent, antisocial or illegal while tanked, it's never the alcohol's fault in your book. Please, tell me if I'm caricaturing your point of view, because I think I just described it perfectly.
You really could learn to read other people's posts. How does:It does have a certain effect on people, but it does not make people into troublemakers. Most people, in my opinion are not troublemakers when drunk
change into:people change when drunk, but only in a positive way.
Can you distinguish between memebers of a group. Can you accept that not all memeber of a group are the same? Can you accept that I am not trying to say alcohol has a uniform effect on people, because it doesn't. So I do not accept that alcohol changes all people for the better or for the worse. The people who act up when drunk have, in my view, a propensity to do that anyway, and it is their fault, not alcohol's fault. If you accept that someone can drink alcohol and not become a thug, then you must accept that alcohol does not cause the anti-social behaviour. Some people drink and act up, perhaps the alcohol inspires them to do so. But if they blame the alcohol they deny their own responsibility. Moreover, they are refusing to accept that what they do is wrong and therefore refuse to alter their behaviour to enjoy alcohol in a respctable manner.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »So, what you are saying is that when people do antisocial or illegal things while completely tanked, it's just a coincidence, because they probably have some sort of issue in their lives at that moment, right? And the alcohol is nothing more than the spark which ignites there suppressed rage? Again, is that correct?
It seems to me a much more accurate description of what goes on, and a more plausable explanation of anti-social behaviour than your concept that everyone who drinks a moderate to large quantity of alcohol will act like a rascal as an inevitability.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I disagree. I think that most people, when drunk enough, will lose any concept of what acting responsibly means. I don't see how you could expect them to maintain a high level of reason in that state.
People should be responsible enough not to get into that state. In the same way that I do not think someone whose drink is spiked is responsible for the reaction to the alcohol. You could argue that most people, if they did anything to excess will loose any concept of what acting responsibly means. The whole thing about responsibility is that it comes from not doing something which is wrong or which will lead to you doing something which is wrong.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Always a matter of opinion? True objective morality may not exist, but we as a society always have to come to a consensus about what is good and what is bad.
Even if just 20% of drinkers on Friday or Saturday night are irresponsible, have too much...etc.. that's still a HUGE number of people. And will it be the same 20% next week, or different people?
There's nothing either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. Yes, good and bad are always a matter of opinon. Even if everyone agrees that something is good, it is still a matter of opinion.
Fact is something that cannot be rationally denied based on an accurate assessment of the evidence, whereas opinion is a conclusion based on one's own views.
I don't know what percentage of drinkers of a friday or saturday night are irresponsible, but if you are accepting that it is a percentage of drinkers who cause the problems, not the majority, then my work here is done. Well, do you?OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Let me just see if I can pick some points out of this. Firstly, I spoke about skipping the queue in reference to what make kick off a fight, not in reference to selfishness.
Now, of course these 'bad' things happen in the day time, but the reason they happen more frequently at night is because there are a lot of boozed of young people roaming the streets, and that's a problem highlighted frequently in the news.
True. But here's the stinger - if we moved people out of the city centre streets or if we drank at different times rather than all on a friday or saturday night, then the problems woud be reduced as much as, if not more than, by removing drink from the equation while leaving people congregate in the city centres.
It seems to me that in suburban areas, there is very little or no hooliganism on a regular basis, and when it happens, it is usually due to some other reason, that might come to a head in the pub, rather than alcohol causing the problem.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »You're right, people who fall off bridges or into manholes when pissed, or kill people with their cars (almost nightly) or lie on A&E beds in the middle of the night shouting about god knows what, all must have pent up rage because of issues in their lives, and the fact that they are legless is just a coincidence, at least we must assume so until further research is carried out.
Sorry if that seems disrespectful, but I think it's a fair mirror of what you have been saying.
My point was that if someone not drunk, but who had been drinking (hence I said 2 pints), is involved in an accident, some people might assume that alcohol was the cause, when the cause might be something completely different. The disrespect comes from your failure to either read my point or try to understand what I'm saying.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »Have you never heard radio programmes like liveline (with Joe Duffy) where people pour their hearts out and tell of how alcohol ruined their life in every conceivable way? Do you really think that half of the wife beaters out there would do it sober, only to send her flowers the next day? Some would, but I'd bet my life that most wouldn't. How about those teenagers from Blackrock College - would they have killed that guy in the street sober? No, they probably would have walked away.
Apart from the fact that by using liveline to prove your point you are shooting yourself in the foot, I accept that people have messed their lives up, some with alcohol, some with other things. Blaming alcohol is much easier than saying I ****ed my life up myself. Domesitc violence has many causes and it is often an interplay of things. Read this. Of the 8 theories of the causes of domestic violence, only one is alcohol related. There are many other causes. Don't forget that, as I've said, many people who have problems misuse alcohol. So if someone has poor impulse control and anger issues, they might try to self medicate with alcohol, which makes their problems worse. I would be more concerned with the underlying issues, and I don't think domestic violence can be cured with such a simple answer as get rid of the drinking and the wife beating will stop.
You mentioned an incident of alcohol related violence, which I do not deny, and it may well be true to say that it would not have happened if they weren't drinking. But you must also consider that there are many killings done for other reasons, by sober people. By going down the what if path your point will be lost. I know you will not like it when I say it, but what if Hitler wasn't a teetotaller, but a a friendly, harmless (maybe slightly anti-social) drunk? On the subject of wars, killing etc, it seems to me that much greater atrocities are caused by sober intent than by drunken accident.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I've had trouble in my extended family with alcohol, and from what I've seen, it's a drug that turns the clock in people's minds back to caveman days. Whether or not people do anything stupid while pissed is 50% circumstance and 50% related to how much they've had, and we all know that after one, it's easy to have two..etc..
I'm sorry to hear that, and I don't want to make things personal, but in addition to circumstance and how much they have had, there is a very strong element of personal responsibility?OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »After living here for 24 years (all my life) I think I have a pretty good grasp of the issue.
I think I can see both sides of the argument; I've agreed with several of your points, and I have at no stage denied the negative effect of alcohol. I am well aware of them, but on balance I have formed the opinion that on the whole alcohol is a good thing(see above). I don't think you give sufficient creedence to the positive aspects of alcohol, you come accross as seeing only the negative points, and that is where I think your views could do with a little perspective.0 -
You give non-drinkers a bad name.....what a killjoy.
Ah you're not even worth a reply - why did I bother here? oh well. Interesting though that most non drinkers I know are far from being killjoys. They're more fun to be around and generally are up for actually doing something productive as opposed to just sitting around in a pub.0 -
Advertisement
-
NonDrinkersClub wrote: »Ah you're not even worth a reply - why did I bother here? oh well. Interesting though that most non drinkers I know are far from being killjoys. They're more fun to be around and generally are up for actually doing something productive as opposed to just sitting around in a pub.
I was directing that comment at the OP alone for implying pubs should all be closed so that he can have a good sleep.
I have nothing against non-drinkers whatsoever and admire anyone who makes that decision.
Although you do seem to have something against people who drink, as you say they are not as productive and not as much fun to be around.
Maybe this forum should be renamed "The Anti-Drinkers Club"0 -
It was a pleasant change when the pubs were closed last Friday, most noteably because fewer people were pissing/puking/shouting in the streets.
Not everyone is crazy on the drink, some people can handle it fine, but many people go out at night with the intention of getting sh*t-faced. These are the people that can end up being unpredictable and potentially dangerous to others and themselves (running in front of taxis, needing to get carted off in ambulances, even jumping into the Liffey!).
There's no point in burying your head in the sand and pretending we all haven't witnessed/heard about these things happening on a regular basis. If you've ever lived in town, then you know what I'm talking about. I used to live near Leeson Street and there were always people pissing on our doorstep even though there were two pubs and a hotel right beside us.
Drinkers weren't too put out last Friday I'm sure. I saw so many off licence/shop queues on Thursday that you'd swear they were never going to sell drink again! Cheaper to drink at home too.
Anyways, a quick note to drinkers - -> this forum should not be used to intentionally pick on non drinkers, no matter how much you don't agree with them. Remember where you are and who your audience is.0 -
I was directing that comment at the OP alone for implying pubs should all be closed so that he can have a good sleep.
I have nothing against non-drinkers whatsoever and admire anyone who makes that decision.
Although you do seem to have something against people who drink, as you say they are not as productive and not as much fun to be around.
Maybe this forum should be renamed "The Anti-Drinkers Club"
I have nothing against anyone, be they drinker or non-drinker, but I don't like bullies.0 -
Well said N.D.C!!;)0
-
Alroysh, no more snide comments please folks!0
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »And let's not get rid of alcohol. We need it.
<coughs>addicted<coughs>johnnyskeleton wrote: »I disagree with you but I'll argue on your own terms. You earlier said that "Alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, turns people into complete a$$holes, and into animals". You now say that there are times when it can objectively be said that somebody is acting like a complete a-hole. I know people who have taken moderate to large doses of alcohol of whom it could not objectively be said that they are an a-hole. Therefore, by your own logic, alcohol, when taken in moderate to large doses, does not always turn people into complete a$$holes, and into animals. That it can is not a reason to blame alcohol, because it's possible that they keep the a$$hole inside when sober and use alcohol as an excuse to let it out. That's not alcohol's fault, nor is it a reason for normal persons to stop drinking.
My point is that you obviously think people who have drunk alcohol are "a$$holes" becasue it's clear that you judge people based on that alone. You don't discriminate between normal behaviour after alcohol consumption and anti-social behaviour after alcohol consumption. That said, I don't agree that we all act pretty much the same way after alcohol.
It's a balancing act. Irish people generally are in favour of alcohol and not in favour of guns. Americans are generally in favour of both. You will find countries that are in favour of guns but not alcohol, and some that are not in favour of both. It's a question of balancing the benefits (the enjoyment of the vast majority of drinkers, the culture that has evolved around it, etc) against the ill effects (anti-social behaviour, alcohol related injuries, etc). The balance for alcohol is that the benefits outweight the ill effects, in much the same way as (I know you don't like this analogy so I'm going to exploit it) the benefits of having cars outweigh the ill effects, or the way that for Irish people the benefits of having guns don't outweigh the ill effects.
Sounds odd to me. Are you a very light sleeper?
It seems from your posts that you have an agenda with protecting the validity and necessity of regular drink. Also I'm curious to know if you ever been around these well behaved drunk people when you were sober? The vast majority of people behave like dickheads when drunk and are very unreasonable I'm saying they're antisocial but they loose their charm and wit and man they're feckin hard to move (I'm ex security personnel).0 -
NonDrinkersClub wrote: »Not everyone is crazy on the drink, some people can handle it fine,
Being fair, that should read "most people can handle it fine". If you're talking about alcohol consumption in general rather than going out boozing then it should probably read "the vast majority of people can handle it fine".NonDrinkersClub wrote: »but many people go out at night with the intention of getting sh*t-faced.
Yep, and as someone who drinks I don't like them either. It's because of people like that that pubs have started drifting towards being nightclubs (can't hear yourself think) not to mention having to put up with the anti-social consequences of their actions (someone being an asshole is just as annoying when you've had a few).0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
NonDrinkersClub wrote: »Anyways, a quick note to drinkers - -> this forum should not be used to intentionally pick on non drinkers, no matter how much you don't agree with them. Remember where you are and who your audience is.
If someone wants to create a thread: "I just gave up drinking" or "I don't drink, what's to do" etc, you won't get drinkers picking on them.
But if you creat a thread along the lines of "Should I look down on drinkers?" or "Why can't the pubs be closed for good so that I can sleep" in a public forum, you are inviting a reply. I feel that I have the right to argue the merits of drinking and pubs respectively, when someone expresses a contrary opinion in a public forum.
Of course, the Non Drinkers Club could become a private forum, then you can do what you like.
To give you an example of what I mean, I don't expect any of you to take issue with a thread in BGRH or AH about what is the nicest beer, but you're perfectly entitled, indeed invited, to express your views if there is a thread that said "Non drinkers are anti-social wierdos".0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
CerebralCortex wrote: »It seems from your posts that you have an agenda with protecting the validity and necessity of regular drink. Also I'm curious to know if you ever been around these well behaved drunk people when you were sober? The vast majority of people behave like dickheads when drunk and are very unreasonable I'm saying they're antisocial but they loose their charm and wit and man they're feckin hard to move (I'm ex security personnel).
The essence of my point is that "the balance for alcohol is that the benefits outweight the ill effects", I don't see that as an agenda to protect teh validity and necessity of regular drink.
Do you have statistics, or even an unbiased source to suggest that the vast majority of people behave like dickheads when drunk?
Ah, you're a former bouncer.0 -
NonDrinkersClub wrote: »These are the people that can end up being unpredictable and potentially dangerous to others and themselves ....even jumping into the Liffey
Yes, a huge amount of drinkers in Dublin like to finish their night with a jump into the Liffey
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:
As Radiohead once sang
"we're not scaremongering....this is really happening!! happening!!"
Bloody hellfire!
0 -
Why do you need to make such a big deal about being a non-drinker? If you don't want to drink, fine. I don't care, as long as you don't stop me drinking if I feel like it. There are no shortage of people who want to impose their vision of the perfect society on the rest of us. We tried that until the 60's with the Catholic Church - look how that turned out. Now maybe we're gone a little too much the other direction ... but only a little.
By the way, making alcohol illegal would be a bonanza for organised crime - just look at prohibition in the US.0 -
+9million (bottles of beer)professore wrote: »By the way, making alcohol illegal would be a bonanza for organised crime - just look at prohibition in the US.0 -
Yes, a huge amount of drinkers in Dublin like to finish their night with a jump into the Liffey
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:
As Radiohead once sang
"we're not scaremongering....this is really happening!! happening!!"
Bloody hellfire!
I think you'll find you left out a lot of what I actually said in this supposed quote! In it's context it was meant to be funny...but you didn't get that did ya? haha. There's a more fitting Radiohead song you could have quoted that actually mentions the Liffey.
But actually, I have known at least three people who jumped in when they were drunk. Bet you know someone that did too, or almost did. No? Ah who cares. The main point is that it was meant to be funny...and it was
Now, no more bad vibes...no one is changing anyone else's opinions on drinking. Some are pro-drink, some are anti-drink, some are accepting of drinkers but don't approve, some are accepting of non-drinkers but think they're missing out. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then good for you, but it seems most folks here do!0 -
professore wrote: »Why do you need to make such a big deal about being a non-drinker? If you don't want to drink, fine. I don't care, as long as you don't stop me drinking if I feel like it. There are no shortage of people who want to impose their vision of the perfect society on the rest of us. We tried that until the 60's with the Catholic Church - look how that turned out. Now maybe we're gone a little too much the other direction ... but only a little.
By the way, making alcohol illegal would be a bonanza for organised crime - just look at prohibition in the US.
I totally agree, prohibition would defo never work in this country! That said, it would be a bit nicer to live here if there were alternatives to the pub, like a late night cafe for example. That way, whether you drink or not, you might find that you can still have fun without the booze on occasion. It's about changing the mindset of people and building real confidence, not just Dutch courage.
Not all non drinkers want to ban alcohol you know. It's just that it's very hard to be a non-drinker with all the pressure to drink around all the time. It is a big deal because not drinking can make your social life very limited and can even seperate you from your friends. It's also very hard to find other non-drinkers. Surely it's easy to see why some non-drinkers sometimes feel a little isolated and wish for a world that wasn't as drink-oriented.
If alcohol were to disappear tomorrow, would non-drinkers feel happier? In most cases, yes. Is that likely to happen? A definite no.0 -
Advertisement
-
professore wrote: »...too much the other direction ... but only a little.
I don't think so even a little. Talk about acting threatened.professore wrote: »By the way, making alcohol illegal would be a bonanza for organised crime - just look at prohibition in the US.
The relevance to the non drinkers forum being what exactly?0
Advertisement