OrangeDragon wrote:You have this idea that people are trying to project manliness just stuck in your craw don't you? Stuck so hard that you feel the need to project it on to everyone/everything. I know a lot of straight people who do that with homosexuality... we call them homophobic.

dagenham wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:You have this idea that people are trying to project manliness just stuck in your craw don't you? Stuck so hard that you feel the need to project it on to everyone/everything. I know a lot of straight people who do that with homosexuality... we call them homophobic.

C'mon...drinking prowess has been a definer of manliness for what? Millennium? I didn't project anything - read all the boasts of how much people can drink in one sitting. It is the way it is and will always be. I can lampoon it if I want - why not? It's patently silly...

dagenham wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

dagenham wrote: Touche, Proud Binge Drinker! Now there is a defensive drunk driver speaking - ha! While there just might be (few, if any) families of 4 out at 3 am., it is (apparently) OK in the hardcore "real man" drinker's milieu to wipe out just 1 or 2 regular people. As they deserve such a fate by dare driving at that hour (obviously).

Driving drunk is a crime (waiting to happen) against other people. It is selfish, senseless and idiotic. Period. Double Period.

Offenders should be tarred and feathered and then castrated and then chained to a urinal for a fortnight. But since they are probably dedicated enthusiastic alcoholics (hence having the lack of judgement not to drive drunk) it will have little to no effect. So they should simply be executed, before they kill some hapless innocent soul driving at 3 am.

Or maybe Stroppy could get creative and start a new NGO - "Bingeing for Christ". Hmmm...

Well reverend dagenham, because you ARE preaching right now instead of discussing, I only pointed out a flaw in your argument. The same flaw that has you using western traffic statistics to talk about actions here. What about drunk walkers? Considering the lack of sidewalks and the local expectation that everyone else will do the "watching out", isn't someone with poor judgement walking in the street likely to step in front of a moto and kill that same family of 4? Shouldn't you be going for full prohibition?

And what about texting drivers? Which do you think impairs reaction time more? 3 beers or sending an SMS? Note: I mean 3 beers on an average person... because everyone has different tolerance levels and while some may get completely smashed at 3 beers others may not even have a buz. Of course all of your statistics will disregard that because they use BAC as a measure...

You surprise me, OD. Really. A classic nonsensical drunk's defense. Am I preaching here? You bet! Against drunk driving, not drinking to get drunk. There is a major difference. Hello?

You pick obvious red herrings like walking and texting (yes, they do cause accidents of course) to deflect the real issue here - drinking copious amounts of alcohol impairs motor functions and general judgement. Fact. From any angle.

Then you pick another classic red herring (really now?) which is that differing amounts of booze effect people differently. Weak. OK, that's obvious as well. 10-15 drinks in a 2-3 hour period will impair any human being on earth to a measurable degree. Can we take that as a given? Or no? Will you counter that there are 3 Finns who can drink 45 drinks in an hour and drive f-1 cars perfectly? OK.

Alcohol is your religion. It's exactly like talking to Stroppy about Christianity. You both fall back on your "faith". Brother, I don't care if you drink 2 bottles of vodka a day. The issue here is driving whilst drunk. And you seemingly will defend this practice to your death with suspect arguments...because it is intrinsically tied with getting drunk when not at home. Hence = defense of driving home drunk.

dagenham wrote:Dear OD, religious fervor for the bottle is what is driving your defense strategy...obviously...we are both guilty as charged...

OrangeDragon wrote:

dagenham wrote:Dear OD, religious fervor for the bottle is what is driving your defense strategy...obviously...we are both guilty as charged...

Not really. I don't care if someone drinks or not... or if I do or not for that matter. You'll see me in my favorite bar on many an evening having orange juice or earl gray tea. Your full of assumptions, and most of them are dead wrong.

What I do care about is someone trying to bring the "nannyness" of the places we all left, often because of it, here with them. Grow up and mind your own business, and let others mind theirs.

Call that "libertarian rhetoric" or whatever you like... I call it common sense. If someone does something wrong to someone else, punish them for it. But no minority report precrime judgements, and let grown adults make grown adult decisions without you trying to be their mother.

104 wrote:It aint about drinking as I have stated several times, it is about driving drunk...

Sir_Quality_U_Feel wrote:

104 wrote:It aint about drinking as I have stated several times, it is about driving drunk...

This..

Surely nobody disagrees with that ?