"Chrissie Hynde was right about rape. Now feminists want to silence her"

[Endus]

You can wake up and you'll no longer be vulnerable, a danger to yourself and others and your liver sure won't be suffering.

You can't snap your fingers and cancel being drunk.

You keep moving the goalposts. Perhaps you should consider that it's because you can't defend your base premises.

I can't snap my fingers and stop being under anaesthetic during surgery. Does that make anaesthetic a "bad thing"? You keep bringing up factors which aren't in any way objectively "bad" when taken into other contexts.

Getting shitfaced always increases your chance of getting injured. ALWAYS. There is no realistic circumstance where you get drunk and statistically you are less likely to get hurt. You can quibble about the differences, but it never goes the opposite way.

Leaving your house always increases your chance of being hit by a car. Always. Does that mean we should never leave our houses, because going outside is "bad"? Or are there levels of risk that we deem acceptable?

[NineSpine]

You keep moving the goalposts. Perhaps you should consider that it's because you can't defend your base premises.

I can't snap my fingers and stop being under anaesthetic during surgery. Does that make anaesthetic a "bad thing"? You keep bringing up factors which aren't in any way objectively "bad" when taken into other contexts.



Leaving your house always increases your chance of being hit by a car. Always. Does that mean we should never leave our houses, because going outside is "bad"? Or are there levels of risk that we deem acceptable?

It's called a risk/reward balance. Leaving your house allows you to do things like eat and see a doctor, which are necessary for life. Drinking is fun, and that's about it. For example, having a car can make your life a lot easier so it has a very high reward to risk ratio. However, driving 120 mph everywhere may be FUN for lot of people, and won't necessarily kill you, but the risk to reward ratio is obviously quite different.

[Endus]

It's called a risk/reward balance. Leaving your house allows you to do things like eat and see a doctor, which are necessary for life. Drinking is fun, and that's about it. For example, having a car can make your life a lot easier so it has a very high reward to risk ratio. However, driving 120 mph everywhere may be FUN for lot of people, and won't necessarily kill you, but the risk to reward ratio is obviously quite different.

And drinking doesn't automatically have a high risk factor. That's the point I'm making. That, and arguing against people who are totally against any risk but only when it comes to women drinking alcohol for some reason.

Driving 110 kph might be dangerous when you're weaving through downtown traffic, but on an open highway, that's the normal speed limit. Context is pretty damned important.

[NineSpine]

And drinking doesn't automatically have a high risk factor. That's the point I'm making. That, and arguing against people who are totally against any risk but only when it comes to women drinking alcohol for some reason.

Driving 110 kph might be dangerous when you're weaving through downtown traffic, but on an open highway, that's the normal speed limit. Context is pretty damned important.

Drinking doesn't have a high risk factor, but drinking until you are falling over, blackout drunk DOES have a high risk factor, and isn't that the real point here?

On the open highway, 120mph in the US is almost double the highway speed limit.

[Endus]

Drinking doesn't have a high risk factor, but drinking until you are falling over, blackout drunk DOES have a high risk factor, and isn't that the real point here?

I'm going to fundamentally disagree with your premise.

On the open highway, 120mph in the US is almost double the highway speed limit.

Which is why I changed it to 110 kph in my example. If you want to argue that getting blackout drunk is always a dangerous thing, you're going to have to explain how it's dangerous when you're, say, home with your wife, who's going to keep an eye on you just in case. If it's not a huge risk then, you can't argue that it's always a huge risk, and thus always-bad. Either the statement is true in all circumstances, or you have to acknowledge that whether or not drunkenness is "bad" is context-specific. Which is precisely what I've been saying all along.

[NineSpine]

I'm going to fundamentally disagree with your premise.



Which is why I changed it to 110 kph in my example. If you want to argue that getting blackout drunk is always a dangerous thing, you're going to have to explain how it's dangerous when you're, say, home with your wife, who's going to keep an eye on you just in case. If it's not a huge risk then, you can't argue that it's always a huge risk, and thus always-bad. Either the statement is true in all circumstances, or you have to acknowledge that whether or not drunkenness is "bad" is context-specific. Which is precisely what I've been saying all along.

Which premise?

I didn't say it was ALWAYS a dangerous thing, but it is ALWAYS more dangerous than not getting blackout drunk.

[Endus]

Which premise?

I didn't say it was ALWAYS a dangerous thing, but it is ALWAYS more dangerous than not getting blackout drunk.

The point is that "more dangerous" is a pretty baseless thing to work with. Taking 2 aspirin for a headache is "more dangerous" than not taking those aspirin. Should we ban aspirin?

[kataraki]

Blackout drinking is not always dangerous?
Is that your advise as a canadian teacher?

[Endus]

Blackout drinking is not always dangerous?
Is that your advise as a canadian teacher?

Yes, because lying to people to play things up to be more dangerous than they actually are is just dishonest. I'd rather educate people as to the facts rather than fearmonger.

[NineSpine]

The point is that "more dangerous" is a pretty baseless thing to work with. Taking 2 aspirin for a headache is "more dangerous" than not taking those aspirin. Should we ban aspirin?

You keep acting like I am speaking in black and white, when I am clearly addressing grey. If you can't carry this conversation without strawmanning me over and over, I'm not going to bother. Taking the aspirin has a great risk to reward ratio, as the number of aspirin related deaths is very low. However, taking aspirin when you don't have a headache, for no reason, is a dumb choice, as it carries a risk and no reward.

Overconsumption of alcohol kills around 90,000 people in the US every year. The risk factor is EXTREMELY high.

[kataraki]

We are speaking about blackout drinking (consuming alcohol to the loss of consciousness and memory) it is always dangerous while it can go well sometimes it always stays empirically dangerous.

Risk assesment is unrelated to the de facto occurrence for the individual.
This alone from a health perspective.

No as a Teacher and Moderator you should really not tell such things as doing blackout drinking is not dangerous you own it to your own professionalism.

[NineSpine]

Yes, because lying to people to play things up to be more dangerous than they actually are is just dishonest. I'd rather educate people as to the facts rather than fearmonger.

You come out for significant gun control when guns kill 1/3rd of the people alcohol does in the US, and when it comes to murders with guns it is closer to 1/9th.

[kataraki]

You come out for significant gun control when guns kill 1/3rd of the people alcohol does in the US, and when it comes to murders with guns it is closer to 1/9th.

It is about how dangerous things look not about how dangerous they are.

[Endus]

You keep acting like I am speaking in black and white, when I am clearly addressing grey. If you can't carry this conversation without strawmanning me over and over, I'm not going to bother. Taking the aspirin has a great risk to reward ratio, as the number of aspirin related deaths is very low. However, taking aspirin when you don't have a headache, for no reason, is a dumb choice, as it carries a risk and no reward.

Overconsumption of alcohol kills around 90,000 people in the US every year. The risk factor is EXTREMELY high.

I'm presuming you're pulling that number from a source like this; http://www.livescience.com/46547-alc...re-deaths.html

That 88,000 deaths per year includes;
1> Dangerous behaviour while drinking (like drinking and driving), and
2> Long-term damage, such as alcohol dependency, cirrhosis of the liver, and so forth.

Neither apply to getting blackout drunk one time under safe circumstances. They both involve other contexts where those other contexts are the issue.

Vehicular deaths in the USA are over 30,000 per annum. That's also "extremely high", by your measure, but nobody's saying that driving is dangerous and nobody should do it.

- - - Updated - - -

No as a Teacher and Moderator you should really not tell such things as doing blackout drinking is not dangerous you own it to your own professionalism.

I really don't see what me being a teacher has to do with anything. I'm not encouraging underage drinking.

- - - Updated - - -

You come out for significant gun control when guns kill 1/3rd of the people alcohol does in the US, and when it comes to murders with guns it is closer to 1/9th.

And like I said, I also support "alcohol control", in terms of age restrictions.

I'm also a supporter of legal gun use.

There's no inconsistency in my position.

[kataraki]

I really don't see what me being a teacher has to do with anything. I'm not encouraging underage drinking.

You claim blackout drinking is not dangerous I mean you speak about situations without medical supervision?

Your job is to teach, evaluate and certificate the skill of people with scores and your opening post in here is to say that race is far more important to determine
performance than standarised tests.
Do you fail to see the irony of that?

You seem intelligent and eloquent but I suppose your ideological driven narrative compromises your judgement in here.
This is just my honest impresion.

I didn't fully read the entire thread but those posts specific seem very very out of place and more emotional based than rational.

[NineSpine]

I'm presuming you're pulling that number from a source like this; http://www.livescience.com/46547-alc...re-deaths.html

That 88,000 deaths per year includes;
1> Dangerous behaviour while drinking (like drinking and driving), and
2> Long-term damage, such as alcohol dependency, cirrhosis of the liver, and so forth.

Neither apply to getting blackout drunk one time under safe circumstances. They both involve other contexts where those other contexts are the issue.

Vehicular deaths in the USA are over 30,000 per annum. That's also "extremely high", by your measure, but nobody's saying that driving is dangerous and nobody should do it.

- - - Updated - - -



I really don't see what me being a teacher has to do with anything. I'm not encouraging underage drinking.

People drink and drive because being very drunk impairs your decision making, and makes it difficult to gauge your own level of impairment.

Once again, for like the fifteenth goddamn time: Vehicles come with SIGNIFICANT benefits to both individuals and society. Getting blackout drunk does not. Getting blackout drunk does not have a side effect of allowing huge economic growth, access to jobs and hospitals, etc.. Vehicles provide all of those things.

A more apt comparison would be needless, wanton speeding on the highway. Sure, it won't necessarily kill you to drive double the speed limit on the highway. You can have great fun doing it, and few people every year (according to you by your attitude towards traffic fatalities) actually die from it. You seem to think that an action only becomes fundamentally more dangerous than the alternative if it ALWAYS kills you.

[Endus]

Your job is to teach, evaluate and certificate the skill of people with scores and your opening post in here is to say that race is far more important to determine
performance than standarised tests.
Do you fail to see the irony of that?

There's no irony. Student evaluation is a big part of teaching, and "scores" are an incredibly poor way to accomplish that. If I had my druthers, I'd completely eliminate grades in primary/secondary education, since they're not helpful to anyone. But that's not really on topic.

[kataraki]

There's no irony. Student evaluation is a big part of teaching, and "scores" are an incredibly poor way to accomplish that. If I had my druthers, I'd completely eliminate grades in primary/secondary education, since they're not helpful to anyone. But that's not really on topic.

Scores are not the evaluation they are just a certification for the public to provide a standarised compareable parameter of the skillset aquirred.

The evaluation happens in the tests. You can't really claim that overall performance improves by reducing the requirements on the base of equality.

I had no grades in elementary school and still got a written assesment of the skills that I had aquirred it all comes down to the same in the end even if you more justly represent the individual.

[Endus]

People drink and drive because being very drunk impairs your decision making, and makes it difficult to gauge your own level of impairment.

This is adding a new piece of context, and you're trying to blame the drinking itself, not that new context.

Once again, for like the fifteenth goddamn time: Vehicles come with SIGNIFICANT benefits to both individuals and society. Getting blackout drunk does not. Getting blackout drunk does not have a side effect of allowing huge economic growth, access to jobs and hospitals, etc.. Vehicles provide all of those things.

This is hand-waving. You're trying to ignore one threat because you see "benefits", when that was never what was being discussed. Nor is it the basis on which we make these kinds of determinations. People who drink see benefits to the drinking, too. It really doesn't matter if you disagree, since you're not involved.

A more apt comparison would be needless, wanton speeding on the highway. Sure, it won't necessarily kill you to drive double the speed limit on the highway. You can have great fun doing it, and few people every year (according to you by your attitude towards traffic fatalities) actually die from it. You seem to think that an action only becomes fundamentally more dangerous than the alternative if it ALWAYS kills you.

You're manufacturing circular arguments, by presuming that your conclusion is proven before you've done so. You can't compare drinking to "needless, wanton speeding" when your intent is to establish that said drinking is dangerous in and of itself; that's presuming that it's that dangerous, which you haven't established yet.

[NineSpine]

Scores are not the evaluation they are just a certification for the public to provide a standarised compareable parameter of the skillset aquirred.

The evaluation happens in the tests. You can't really claim that overall performance improves by reducing the requirements on the base of equality.

The problem with that assertion is that the reality of the situation is that testing can only reliably gauge test-taking skills.