DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


How does it impact your life? I don't drive drunk. Last night I threw a party, had a beer at the beginning, won three games of beer pong, sat down and watched some of the Olympics and had another beer. About an hour after my last beer I drove home.

So... I ask again, how did I effect your life in any way shape or form last night?

If I split a bottle of wine over dinner how does that effect you?
Not you, specifically...those who engage in the consumption of alcoholic beverages
How does my not drinking affect YOU in any way?
It doesn't. I could care less. But it's attitudes like your own... the 'people shouldn't be allowed to do X' that I have a problem with.
Point out where in this thread I said "people shouldn't be allowed to drink" or anything along those lines.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

I think it's odd that people put so much emphasis on booze anyway. In college, I see people who basically base their lives around the consumption of alcohol, and there just seems something wrong about that to me.

Although I'm a bit of a nutter, because I'd not mind if it were a dry country.
You'd not mind if people had their freedom taken away is what you really said.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

I think it's odd that people put so much emphasis on booze anyway. In college, I see people who basically base their lives around the consumption of alcohol, and there just seems something wrong about that to me.

Although I'm a bit of a nutter, because I'd not mind if it were a dry country.
You'd not mind if people had their freedom taken away is what you really said.
... The people's right to get shitfaced must not be infringed!

Here you're suggesting that my view that I could live in a country without alcohol is infringing on the freedom of others whereas I also said

I wrote:

I know it [Prohibition] didn't work, and I'm not a proponent for legislation to ban it [alcohol] again (because it wouldn't work).
By that logic anyway, your government is oppressive by not allowing you the total freedom to do what you want. They're keeping you from doing cocaine off the ass of a hooker, too, but no one's so quick to get their panties in a knot about that.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

I think it's odd that people put so much emphasis on booze anyway. In college, I see people who basically base their lives around the consumption of alcohol, and there just seems something wrong about that to me.

Although I'm a bit of a nutter, because I'd not mind if it were a dry country.
You'd not mind if people had their freedom taken away is what you really said.
... The people's right to get shitfaced must not be infringed!

Here you're suggesting that my view that I could live in a country without alcohol is infringing on the freedom of others whereas I also said

I wrote:

I know it [Prohibition] didn't work, and I'm not a proponent for legislation to ban it [alcohol] again (because it wouldn't work).
By that logic anyway, your government is oppressive by not allowing you the total freedom to do what you want. They're keeping you from doing cocaine off the ass of a hooker, too, but no one's so quick to get their panties in a knot about that.
I'm pro-legalization of drugs as well even though I don't do them. Peoples freedom should not be limited simply because people like yourself do not value their freedoms or wish to stamp their personal moral code on society. Unless a person is performing actions that infringe on anothers life there is nothing that should be said about it. If a person commits murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud etc they are infringing on another persons life. If they are driving without wearing a seat belt or smoking weed in their own home (or doing coke off a hooker's ass) then it shouldn't be an issue. It's their life to fuck up, it's not your life to 'save'.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

I prefer to do my coke off of a hookers tits. I find too much of it tends to get lost in her ass-crack otherwise, and I never really want to go digging around in there to get the rest of it back.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


You'd not mind if people had their freedom taken away is what you really said.
... The people's right to get shitfaced must not be infringed!

Here you're suggesting that my view that I could live in a country without alcohol is infringing on the freedom of others whereas I also said

I wrote:

I know it [Prohibition] didn't work, and I'm not a proponent for legislation to ban it [alcohol] again (because it wouldn't work).
By that logic anyway, your government is oppressive by not allowing you the total freedom to do what you want. They're keeping you from doing cocaine off the ass of a hooker, too, but no one's so quick to get their panties in a knot about that.
I'm pro-legalization of drugs as well even though I don't do them. Peoples freedom should not be limited simply because people like yourself do not value their freedoms or wish to stamp their personal moral code on society. Unless a person is performing actions that infringe on anothers life there is nothing that should be said about it. If a person commits murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud etc they are infringing on another persons life. If they are driving without wearing a seat belt or smoking weed in their own home (or doing coke off a hooker's ass) then it shouldn't be an issue. It's their life to fuck up, it's not your life to 'save'.
Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
Fine, go off the topic because you can't back up your previous statements. I'm a communist and don't value my freedom because I'm a spoiled, bean-counting, uptight prick.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
Fine, go off the topic because you can't back up your previous statements. I'm a communist and don't value my freedom because I'm a spoiled, bean-counting, uptight prick.
I haven't gone off topic in the slightest. You made a statement. You didn't truly understand the statement you were making and now you're trying to deflect. Next time think a bit before saying something like 'Oh, I wouldn't mind if this was a dry country'. This is a statement saying that you would willingly vote away your freedoms (and that of others) if it ever came up for a vote.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America
Bullshit, Galt. I've told you multiple times exactly what I'm saying, and since you picked a fight but have figured out you had no reason to, bring up the freedom argument.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

Bullshit, Galt. I've told you multiple times exactly what I'm saying, and since you picked a fight but have figured out you had no reason to, bring up the freedom argument.

DesertFox- wrote:

I know it didn't work, and I'm not a proponent for legislation to ban it again (because it wouldn't work). As a dry country, I mean that in a way that no one would even want alcohol, but it's a pipe dream because intoxication is just so damn tightly integrated into our culture.
This is a clear statement that you would in fact try to ban alcohol if you thought the ban would be effective.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

LostFate wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Pretty much.  That's why I drink, fuck, and drive -- but not all at once.
You're missing out on life
Abit hard to stear with a beer in one hand and a titty (pardon) Breast in the other !
Its what cup holders are for idiot.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Bullshit, Galt. I've told you multiple times exactly what I'm saying, and since you picked a fight but have figured out you had no reason to, bring up the freedom argument.

DesertFox- wrote:

I know it didn't work, and I'm not a proponent for legislation to ban it again (because it wouldn't work). As a dry country, I mean that in a way that no one would even want alcohol, but it's a pipe dream because intoxication is just so damn tightly integrated into our culture.
This is a clear statement that you would in fact try to ban alcohol if you thought the ban would be effective.
I suppose you could claim that, but then again I also state right there that legislation to ban it would be ineffective. The only way we'd be able to get rid of alcohol in this country is if everyone just decided not to consume it, which isn't going to happen.
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6455|England

DesertFox- wrote:

... The people's right to get shitfaced must not be infringed!.
how about we take away you're freedom of speech!  its my right to go and get SHIT faced.

Last edited by LostFate (2010-02-21 05:22:50)

B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
more drama, please

There is a reason for the age limit on alcohol, just like there is a reason for the laws on drunk driving, or against drugs, etc.

And I am pretty certain you'll acknowledge that.

No civil society can exist when people have all their freedoms. People just ain't that good.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6686

B.Schuss wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
more drama, please

There is a reason for the age limit on alcohol, just like there is a reason for the laws on drunk driving, or against drugs, etc.

And I am pretty certain you'll acknowledge that.

No civil society can exist when people have all their freedoms. People just ain't that good.
Well it's the parents job to watch over their fucking kids isn't it? Age limit for alcohol doesn't work... Kids will still get booze no matter what.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

B.Schuss wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Good show, but what the fuck are you talking about? I've not said anything about restricting the personal freedoms of others, which is what you misinterpreted my view on page 1 to say and are reiterating here, despite the fact that my previous post elaborates how I was only referring to myself.
No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
more drama, please

There is a reason for the age limit on alcohol, just like there is a reason for the laws on drunk driving, or against drugs, etc.

And I am pretty certain you'll acknowledge that.

No civil society can exist when people have all their freedoms. People just ain't that good.
Freedom is messy. You and I may not agree with the actions that people take within the bounds of their freedom but we must absolutely respect their right to exercise that freedom. I do not, and will not accept limitations on my freedom outside of the boundaries of physical protection from others.

If I want to get drunk I am hurting no one but myself. If I get into a car and decide to drive drunk I am negatively impacting others on the road around me and causing them to needlessly be in danger. Do you see the difference? What I do to myself is no ones business but my own.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6651|Disaster Free Zone

JohnG@lt wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No kid, it was you who didn't understand the ramifications of what he was saying. "It's ok if they ban this or that, I don't do it anyway" is a far too common statement in our society. You don't value your freedoms because you've never been in a situation where you've lost them. I have and I value every last precious one.
more drama, please

There is a reason for the age limit on alcohol, just like there is a reason for the laws on drunk driving, or against drugs, etc.

And I am pretty certain you'll acknowledge that.

No civil society can exist when people have all their freedoms. People just ain't that good.
Freedom is messy. You and I may not agree with the actions that people take within the bounds of their freedom but we must absolutely respect their right to exercise that freedom. I do not, and will not accept limitations on my freedom outside of the boundaries of physical protection from others.

If I want to get drunk I am hurting no one but myself. If I get into a car and decide to drive drunk I am negatively impacting others on the road around me and causing them to needlessly be in danger. Do you see the difference? What I do to myself is no ones business but my own.
Until you end up with alcohol poisoning, need an ambulance to rush you to a hospital to have your stomach pumped and then put in a physc ward for substance abuse, all financed by your friendly tax payer.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:


more drama, please

There is a reason for the age limit on alcohol, just like there is a reason for the laws on drunk driving, or against drugs, etc.

And I am pretty certain you'll acknowledge that.

No civil society can exist when people have all their freedoms. People just ain't that good.
Freedom is messy. You and I may not agree with the actions that people take within the bounds of their freedom but we must absolutely respect their right to exercise that freedom. I do not, and will not accept limitations on my freedom outside of the boundaries of physical protection from others.

If I want to get drunk I am hurting no one but myself. If I get into a car and decide to drive drunk I am negatively impacting others on the road around me and causing them to needlessly be in danger. Do you see the difference? What I do to myself is no ones business but my own.
Until you end up with alcohol poisoning, need an ambulance to rush you to a hospital to have your stomach pumped and then put in a physc ward for substance abuse, all financed by your friendly tax payer.
Yeah, but this is America, not Oz. That would be covered by their insurance company, not the taxpayer
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

LostFate wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

... The people's right to get shitfaced must not be infringed!.
how about we take away you're freedom of speech!  its my right to go and get SHIT faced.
Your*

Are you going to actually post a coherent, worthwhile response here or just ride on the coattails of others?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:


That's called faking it.
Well, even if they're faking it....






I still know I'm not.
You're drunk you wouldn't know.
Hey, I don't get THAT drunk...  lol
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6455|England

DesertFox- wrote:

LostFate wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

... The people's right to get shitfaced must not be infringed!.
how about we take away you're freedom of speech!  its my right to go and get SHIT faced.
Your*

Are you going to actually post a coherent, worthwhile response here or just ride on the coattails of others?
I think it needs to be said twice thanks wycliff honey.

Last edited by LostFate (2010-02-22 04:18:30)

wah1188
You orrible caaaaaaan't
+321|6430|UK
Go to texas yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaah dickface!
Ticia
Member
+73|5305

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, even if they're faking it....






I still know I'm not.
You're drunk you wouldn't know.
Hey, I don't get THAT drunk...  lol
From your post i assumed you needed to be drunk to fuck. My bad.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:


You're drunk you wouldn't know.
Hey, I don't get THAT drunk...  lol
From your post i assumed you needed to be drunk to fuck. My bad.
LOL...  not usually anyway...  I eventually stopped using beer goggles.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard