I must admit, now I'm genuinely curious, if you consider it irresponsible to take even one sip of alcohol, do you consider everyone who has taken many common over-the-counter cold remedies to be equally irresponsible? (for instance, most of the formulations of NyQuil contain alcohol).

Ok, I think I'm giving up.

In my experience, people with positions like that are either religious or have an alcoholic family member. I was just curious which it was.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

Or they're around 20, which seems to be the optimal age for holding absurdly strong and unbudgeable philosophical positions on moral issues.

Judging from xDragon's signature - "in the south with the rednecks" - and his/her moral intolerance for alcohol, it's very likely a religious objection. The profile fits almost seamlessly with those folks from the Bible Belt, i.e., South Eastern United States. As such, it seems we're getting into TOS violation realm.

Besides, I see no value in moralizing on individual choices and cultural mores.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

I wasn't going to say it

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

Do you eat meat? Then you are a murderer, by association if not by deed. As a vegetarian I don't distinguish.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

xDragon: Kudos on the troll, or, if you weren't trolling, kudos on the flexible semantics/circular logic... Either way, well done

As to the original topic of the thread, in Santa Cruz, we used to play beer handicap occasionally, have a beer when you win. And there was one night where we replaced beer with absinthe. And then we were irresponsible... It was nice being responsibly irresponsible.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

at the new york go center we often have parties on tuesdays where a fair amount of drinking occurs. It doesnt really lead to good go per-se, but it is hella fun.

Sometimes we do karaoke too... In Korea my first game of go was against a pro, it happened to be a drunken game, also imaginary (that is calling out coordinates) and 9x9. Needless to say i lost, however, we wrote down the game...apperently i was somehow leading till the end.

*I am actively ignoring the troll*

ive always found it funny how quickly people run to the "troll" accusation when someone has an opinion that they dont agree with. if you have a problem with my views, thats your fault, not mine, and you need to find a way to deal with it that doesnt resort to name calling.

No one judges you for your views. Their beef with you is that, instead of stating your views civilly, you post on a thread you disagree with just to call the majority of forum members immoral. There is plenty of room for disagreement, but starting an argument (especially a personal one) just to start one is the definition of trolling. Until relatively recently I did not drink. Repeat after me. "I disagree with you all. Now resume your conversation". You have stated your views, and we have heard them.

Well, trolling isn't really name-calling, it refers to a definition (admittedly a recent one, won't be in most dictionaries), someone who attempts to derail an internet conversation by taking and holding an extreme view. Now, it may be that you hold that view. However, that doesn't change the disruptive nature of your comments with regard to the original intention of the thread.

Now, since you seem to want to have this conversation. You are welcome to believe what you like, in this case,

You have stated that your belief is that drinking is fundamentally irresponsible at any level, (that is, with any quantity of intake whatsoever), and that drinking carries a stigma.

a) What do we mean by irresponsible?

I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you mean that a person loses some control of their actions and decision-making ability while under the influence of alcohol. This is certainly not under dispute.

However, the degree to which a person's judgement/actions are changed is dependent on the degree of intake. Furthermore, intake of most substances will change your behavior in some ways: Sugar, caffeine, protein, fish, pork, asparagus. The abstinence argument is very quickly squashed by the death-by-starvation argument. Eating just about anything will impart toxins, and your behavior and attitude will noticeably change depending on your meal.

Alcohol is hardly the only thing your liver has to deal with. Even a non-drinker will quickly die without their liver, killed by the daily traffic through their body.

If the argument is that alcohol is dangerous, then there exists some level of intake which is equivalent to the mind altering effects of other consumables, therefore, any intake is not hazardous (or not any more hazardous than what we must do on a daily basis to survive).

Therefore, your assertion that any intake of alcohol is irresponsible is not borne out by the facts.

It may further be argued that drinking at a level which does not measurably impact the liver may improve socialization, and thus may serve a societal good by bringing people together and loosening their natural tensions.

Stress and Nervous tension are major health problems as well.

b) "Drinking carries a stigma"

By whom? All forms of drinking may carry a stigma in your community, and being incapable of performing everyday tasks as a result of heavy drinking is a stigma in most all communities. However, we return to the problem of degree.

If it is impossible to judge whether or not a person has been drinking or if they're just in good spirits (Say, after a single beer), then how do we determine how to apply the stigma? Is it because they have a beer in their hand?

Logic 101:

Does "All drunkards must have had alcohol"

Imply "All people who have alcohol must be drunkards"?

The answer is no. Therefore, it is unfair to apply the standard of a person who has had too much alcohol to a person who is merely "relaxed". In this case, you are applying a stigma to a person with a drink, rather than to the action of drinking until one ceases to reason.

All this being said, drinking can be dangerous. I feel it is irresponsible (and not conducive to your aims in reducing alcohol consumption) to ignore the very obvious observable differences between a person who has had a small amount of alcohol and a large amount.

Attempting to "Scare people straight" is a ploy that can easily backfire. People respond better to facts.

EDIT: P.S. I wrote this while sipping on a very nice single malt

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I just chose for myself not to drink (and I can stand it if people mock me for that). I don't mind if people drink as long as I don't get any problems because they cannot control themselves.


Even if it is, people have the right to do stupid things for themselves under the condition that others don't get any disadvantages from that.



This is actually a misconception, and I often hear this as excuse of people who drink on a regular basis. While some ingredients of red wine are known to be healthy, other ingredients do outweigh this, so that overall drinking red wine is disadvantageous.

If the argument is that people who can't handle it are encouraged to drink it by people who can.

Personal responsibility is important. And while a person may feel left out, there are alternatives to being drunk which will serve the same social-lubricating/relaxing function.

I wouldn't take away penicillin from people because some people have an allergic reaction to it. I'd seek to identify persons with the allergy and then give them an alternative.

Using penicillin does not encourage its usage in harmful ways.

P.S. Tallasker

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Wow, such zealousness! It almost makes me want to replace my avatar and signature with a good ol' "Mmmmm, beer is good"...

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

I remember someone (famous, but unfortunately I don't remember who) once stated something along these lines:

"everything is toxic, it's only a matter of dose"

I believe it is pretty much correct.

PS Do you mean Talisker? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talisker)

_________________
Offending ad removed

I've heard this is something of a motto for pharmacology students

Had to dig it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus ... toxicology

_________________
Offending ad removed

Hah, yeah, Talisker, Well, I fail...

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...