Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet whenever the talk of freedom of speech being restrained by "political correctness" comes up, it's usually around the ability to insult a race, nationality, religious group or ethnic group without consequences.
Why the hate for the pro-alcohol voters? Aren't you of all folks supposed to be in favor for less government control over your life?
Or do you so-called "free-market less-government" conservatives simply pick and choose which type of government control is okay and which is not? There is a lot of intellectual contradiction in that thought process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Low voter turn-out is what made the referendums turn out like they did. Those who were passionate about alcohol, no doubt many of them alcoholics, turned out to vote. Most other people were apathetic or somewhat unaware that there was even an election going on.
Why the hate for the pro-alcohol voters? Aren't you of all folks supposed to be in favor for less government control over your life?
Or do you so-called "free-market less-government" conservatives simply pick and choose which type of government control is okay and which is not? There is a lot of intellectual contradiction in that thought process.
I didn't state whether I agreed with the vote or not. I merely made a statement about why it turned out the way that it did. It can pretty much be assumed that alcoholics came out to vote, or that people who were partial to alcohol came out to vote, while most everyone stayed home, either out of apathy, or because they were unaware that there was an election going. It wasn't advertised much like most elections. It was also during a non-primary year. In fact, no one was even voting for U.S. representatives. A very unnoticeable election to most people. In reality, it should have been held during a year when most people would be willing to get out to vote.
What is the purpose of drinking alcohol? It doesn't serve a purpose, does it? It merely indicates a lack of thinking by the person drinking it. It shows weak character and someone that isn't intelligent. The only reason most drink is either out of debased reasons (ie: to feel a buzz, to loose their inhibitions, or to not remember their problems), or out of immaturity (they think that it is something "grown-up" to do. They think that it makes them more like an "adult"). Alcohol by and large tastes awful, so you know that it has little to do with flavor or good taste.
Alcohol kills thousands of people every year. It's a bigger killer than cigarettes.
Why are hard drugs banned? Because they kill. Since alcohol kills, shouldn't it be banned too, or shouldn't they all be legal?
If you say that all drugs should be legalized, remember that legalization merely makes the problem worse, as it has in European countries with the legalization of marijuana. The reason for this is because it legitimizes the drug in people's minds. It's seen as okay, so they try it. Before you know, you end up with more addicts and more deaths.
And yet whenever the talk of freedom of speech being restrained by "political correctness" comes up, it's usually around the ability to insult a race, nationality, religious group or ethnic group without consequences.
Funny how that works.
Freedom of Speech!
Why should someone be punished because they have a different view about different groups of people. As long as they aren't physically assaulting someone, or spreading particular rumors about a person that puts their life in jeopardy, it's that person's right.
Somehow, out of the "civil rights/communist" legislation of the 1960s and the subsequent following of nonsensical arguments made from such communist mindsets, it has been argued that people don't have a right to think or speak on particular subjects that some other people happen to believe are taboo. Nonsense. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech.
You really want to go there? Think of all the crime, deaths, and corruption that took place during the prohibition days with alcohol. We brown-bagged it and infinitely reduce the criminal empires and destroyed the black markets that sprung up because of prohibited alcohol!
Also Western European has the lowest rates of deaths from drug use in the world. That's because they have a cultural mandate to make sure each of their citizens are educated on its usage and side effects, something that virtually doesn't take place here in the U.S.A.
But seeing as how if you want to go down that tired failed "Drug War" route, then let's do this: I'll join you to ban alcohol if...you will join me ban handguns and rifles, since these weapons too kill thousands.
Agreed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
What is the purpose of drinking alcohol? It doesn't serve a purpose, does it? It merely indicates a lack of thinking by the person drinking it. It shows weak character and someone that isn't intelligent. The only reason most drink is either out of debased reasons (ie: to feel a buzz, to loose their inhibitions, or to not remember their problems), or out of immaturity (they think that it is something "grown-up" to do. They think that it makes them more like an "adult"). Alcohol by and large tastes awful, so you know that it has little to do with flavor or good taste.
Alcohol kills thousands of people every year. It's a bigger killer than cigarettes.
Why are hard drugs banned? Because they kill. Since alcohol kills, shouldn't it be banned too, or shouldn't they all be legal?
If you say that all drugs should be legalized, remember that legalization merely makes the problem worse, as it has in European countries with the legalization of marijuana. The reason for this is because it legitimizes the drug in people's minds. It's seen as okay, so they try it. Before you know, you end up with more addicts and more deaths.
Last edited by AcidSnake; 11-13-2011 at 07:31 AM..
So you should agree with me then that it wasn't right for Mayor Reed to push those Occupy Atlanta protestors out of Woodruff park, right? They haven't physically assaulted anyone, or spread rumors about any persons that would put anyone's life in jeopardy.
As you've said it yourself, "Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Freedom of Speech!
Why should someone be punished because they have a different view about different groups of people.As long as they aren't physically assaulting someone, or spreading particular rumors about a person that puts their life in jeopardy, it's that person's right.
Somehow, out of the "civil rights/communist" legislation of the 1960s and the subsequent following of nonsensical arguments made from such communist mindsets, it has been argued that people don't have a right to think or speak on particular subjects that some other people happen to believe are taboo. Nonsense. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech.
Why should someone be punished because they have a different view about different groups of people. As long as they aren't physically assaulting someone, or spreading particular rumors about a person that puts their life in jeopardy, it's that person's right.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or disapproval.
The opponents of "political correctness" seem to get tangled up in that. There's nothing prohibiting us from using insulting language or from using ethnic, sexual or other slurs. Fire away!
However, that doesn't mean everyone else has to remain silent when I speak. If they find something I say offensive, they have the right to express disapproval. All of that is 100% legal.
The opponents of "political correctness" seem to think they should not only have the right to say whatever they want, but the special right to not be criticized for it.
I have every right to call somebody a mean old, conniving pot-bellied battleaxe, even though many would consider such talk inappropriate and insulting. Free speech gives me the absolute and complete right to say it, whether it's "politically correct" or not. But I don't have any right to not be criticized for talking that way.
I didn't state whether I agreed with the vote or not. I merely made a statement about why it turned out the way that it did. It can pretty much be assumed that alcoholics came out to vote, or that people who were partial to alcohol came out to vote, while most everyone stayed home, either out of apathy, or because they were unaware that there was an election going. It wasn't advertised much like most elections. It was also during a non-primary year. In fact, no one was even voting for U.S. representatives. A very unnoticeable election to most people. In reality, it should have been held during a year when most people would be willing to get out to vote.
What is the purpose of drinking alcohol? It doesn't serve a purpose, does it? It merely indicates a lack of thinking by the person drinking it. It shows weak character and someone that isn't intelligent. The only reason most drink is either out of debased reasons (ie: to feel a buzz, to loose their inhibitions, or to not remember their problems), or out of immaturity (they think that it is something "grown-up" to do. They think that it makes them more like an "adult"). Alcohol by and large tastes awful, so you know that it has little to do with flavor or good taste.
Alcohol kills thousands of people every year. It's a bigger killer than cigarettes.
Why are hard drugs banned? Because they kill. Since alcohol kills, shouldn't it be banned too, or shouldn't they all be legal?
If you say that all drugs should be legalized, remember that legalization merely makes the problem worse, as it has in European countries with the legalization of marijuana. The reason for this is because it legitimizes the drug in people's minds. It's seen as okay, so they try it. Before you know, you end up with more addicts and more deaths.
what is the purpose of doing anything Society has determined that alcohol is acceptable to drink, just like it has decided that energy drinks or soda are acceptable.
If we go down this route of banning alcohol whose to say that banning sugar related foods and fat-foods isn't next? Don't these items cause diabetes and heart strokes/attacks?
I will never trust those who under one breath claim to be for "less government" and then under the other breath tells me that I am not allowed to partake of my rice wine!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Man
what is the purpose of doing anything Society has determined that alcohol is acceptable to drink, just like it has decided that energy drinks or soda are acceptable.
I didn't state whether I agreed with the vote or not. I merely made a statement about why it turned out the way that it did. It can pretty much be assumed that alcoholics came out to vote, or that people who were partial to alcohol came out to vote, while most everyone stayed home, either out of apathy, or because they were unaware that there was an election going. It wasn't advertised much like most elections. It was also during a non-primary year. In fact, no one was even voting for U.S. representatives. A very unnoticeable election to most people. In reality, it should have been held during a year when most people would be willing to get out to vote.
What is the purpose of drinking alcohol? It doesn't serve a purpose, does it? It merely indicates a lack of thinking by the person drinking it. It shows weak character and someone that isn't intelligent. The only reason most drink is either out of debased reasons (ie: to feel a buzz, to loose their inhibitions, or to not remember their problems), or out of immaturity (they think that it is something "grown-up" to do. They think that it makes them more like an "adult"). Alcohol by and large tastes awful, so you know that it has little to do with flavor or good taste.
Alcohol kills thousands of people every year. It's a bigger killer than cigarettes.
Why are hard drugs banned? Because they kill. Since alcohol kills, shouldn't it be banned too, or shouldn't they all be legal?
If you say that all drugs should be legalized, remember that legalization merely makes the problem worse, as it has in European countries with the legalization of marijuana. The reason for this is because it legitimizes the drug in people's minds. It's seen as okay, so they try it. Before you know, you end up with more addicts and more deaths.
Did this guy really just call all people who drink dumb?
Then goes on to tell us how prohibition is better for society when all it does is breed violent gangs and crime?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Society has determined that alcohol is acceptable to drink, just like it has decided that energy drinks or soda are acceptable.
