Skipjack wrote:Yeah, but you can not make EVERYBODY else responsible for this guy, once he has done something stupid. It is idiotic. I for my part would find it VERY, VERY irritating if I had to ask people for their papers before handing them a drink at a party. That is absolutely idiotic.Initially, everyone is assumed to be responsible for themselves. It is only after someone has demonstrated that they are NOT responsible, do they lose their alcohol license.
How about water? That stuff can be very dangerous. It buries people. People drown in it. It is the central element in floods. People have overdosed on it.I am merely suggesting that we use the same logic for alcohol that we use for everything else that is dangerous.
You realize of course your reduction to the absurd is itself... absurd. In the same manner, this reduction could also be used to imply the restriction of landmines and RPGs to the general public extends to the absurd.MSimon wrote:How about water? That stuff can be very dangerous. It buries people. People drown in it. It is the central element in floods. People have overdosed on it.I am merely suggesting that we use the same logic for alcohol that we use for everything else that is dangerous.
It is a ubiquitous unmarked (mostly) hazard
And how about sticks? They grow on trees. And yet nothing is done to regulate such hazards. Why anyone can pick up a stick.
And don't get me started on rocks and the people who sell them to children.
I believe the topic is "An it harm none, Do as thou will." Meaning, the subject requires one person to hurt another by using or misusing the subject in question.MSimon wrote:How about water? That stuff can be very dangerous. It buries people. People drown in it. It is the central element in floods. People have overdosed on it.I am merely suggesting that we use the same logic for alcohol that we use for everything else that is dangerous.
It is a ubiquitous unmarked (mostly) hazard
And how about sticks? They grow on trees. And yet nothing is done to regulate such hazards. Why anyone can pick up a stick.
And don't get me started on rocks and the people who sell them to children.
You are mischaracterizing the idea. I say it is a match, and you claim it is a bonfire.Skipjack wrote:They all already are regulated.All require regulation, and should.
You just want to take the regulation of some of them to new extremes, that require everybody else to turn STASI on their friends.
Hey, in the DDR it was the same. You could not tell on your neighbour, but if he got cought doing things that were not in the interest of the DDR, the STASI would come over and ask you lots of questions and if they found out that you knew something and did not tell on him, you could share a cell with him.I even pointed out that no one has to even verify someones credentials. They can accept the risk that someone they are giving alcohol to will do something that gets them (the giver of alcohol) into legal trouble.
You want to take the risk? Fine. Just be prepared to accept the consequences. It is no different from giving matches and gasoline to an arsonist.
Skipjack wrote:Hey, in the DDR it was the same. You could not tell on your neighbour, but if he got cought doing things that were not in the interest of the DDR, the STASI would come over and ask you lots of questions and if they found out that you knew something and did not tell on him, you could share a cell with him.I even pointed out that no one has to even verify someones credentials. They can accept the risk that someone they are giving alcohol to will do something that gets them (the giver of alcohol) into legal trouble.
You want to take the risk? Fine. Just be prepared to accept the consequences. It is no different from giving matches and gasoline to an arsonist.
You can not demand from private people to play "alcohol police". That is not practical and believe me, people would not like it.
I would not like it.
I would even agree to this alcohol license thingy, to some extent. But limit it to liquor stores and bars. Anything beyond that is ridiculous.
Maybe in Austria. Down here in Oklahoma and Texas, children handle guns when they are six or seven.Skipjack wrote:This is not the same!
First of all: A child = clearly to young to handle a gun.
A gun doesn't have any intentions. It relies on the person using it for it's purpose. You can target shoot or crack walnuts with it. (make sure it's unloaded first.Skipjack wrote: Second of all: A gun = meant to kill people with. Alcohol = meant to have fun with. fun != killing
) Skipjack wrote: Alcohol can rarely be used to directly kill someone with it (unless you overdose someone on it, or burn him with high percentage alcohol).
You would have to get drunk beyond the legal limit and then do something else that will ultimately kill people (like driving like a jerk because you are drunk and never learned how to handle alcohol as a teenager BEFORE you got your drivers license, like you should have).
Yeah and I can see that being a problem.Maybe in Austria. Down here in Oklahoma and Texas, children handle guns when they are six or seven.
Well, you usually know the age of your friends. So if you are handing out alcohol at a party to your friends, you cant really go wrong.Secondly, it is easy to tell when a child is very young, but what if a child is 12 and looks like they are 20?
Are you telling me that you're calibrated eyeball can accurately guess the age of these adult looking children?
Same thing with a reckless alcoholic. Unless you already know, you can't tell by looking at them.
Your views of the world are most amusing to us Europeans. That is probably why we Austrians have a much lower crime rate than you guys have (still, even with an increasing turkish population).Please continue telling me how misusing alcohol is completely different from misusing a gun. I find your arguments most amusing.