Are you now? Well, good luck with thatOriginally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Are you now? Well, good luck with that
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Gosh, see who's getting all upset about his favorite intoxicating substance having negative side effects. You know that alcoholism isn't just the problem of the alcoholist don't you? Are you going to deny that if you give the example to children that drinking alcohol is ok, they may pick up the idea that drinking a potentially harmful liquid is the way to go?
Congratulations America
No, drinking to excess can cause irresponsibility.
Someone having a single glass of wine a night with their meal will only get positive effects and no negative impact on others. This is completely different to someone smoking a cigarette each night with the meal.
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence. So that establishes that drinking is a huge problem to start with.
If you drink in front of your child you not only give off the message that drinking is ok. By which you risk your child using the potentially harmfull to excess. A real problem given the habit of youngsters engaging in binge drinking, especially in the UK. Also you inflict real emotional stress on your child by drinking more than the absolute minimum in its presence. Because you may think you are holding your liquor, your child will notice changed behavioral patterns and it will react to those. Drinking more than one beer or a glass of wine in the presence of a child puts that child's health and developement at risk.
If you are ever drunk or visibly affected by alcohol in the presence of a child Randblade you are just as much a child abuser as the smokers you equated to child rapers.
Congratulations America
No?
Watch my statement again: "Drinking can cause irresponsibility". Your little nitpick doesn't make it less true.
Great! Luckily I wasn't into the moronic practise of trying to weigh the two against each other, I was pointing out it's not a good idea. The weasel word in the phrase: "Drinking has absolutely zero direct impact on those nearby" might make it true, it still isn't a good idea for parents to drink with children around. Also for reasons Hazir mentioned. Still, as you display here, it's accepted socially that they do, so the single wine example is carted out, and "in excess" needs to be specified. Again, doesn't change the fact "Drinking can cause irresponsibility". I don't flipping care or see the relevance whether there's a direct or indirect harm, doesn't make it less potentially harmful.Someone having a single glass of wine a night with their meal will only get positive effects and no negative impact on others. This is completely different to someone smoking a cigarette each night with the meal.
And why can the argument of the few bad apples who do drink in excess not be used with regard to all drinkers, while smokers are required to carry the burden of their bad apples?
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Are they, though? A lot of shit has been said during this thread, but I think the original proposition was that mothers who smoke while pregnant or in the same air-space as their born children are harming them, and there was some nit-pickery on whether that's abuse or simple neglect. Either way, these definitely aren't the good apples in society; mommies and daddies can light up when they're not around their kids, just as you don't light up on a bus stop if you can help it.
At least that's how I understood the original argument, maybe I got it wrong!
(I'm assuming we're going with the usual line of reasoning that kiddy-winks cannot give informed consent, so mommy can't ask little Johnny if it's okay that mommy just has this one, it was a long day, etc)
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
You're right, the comment wasn't directed at remarks in this thread. Beauty of this forum, the nibbling at the edges of the main argument. To me it doesn't even matter whether it's harming or potentially harming, whether it should be called abuse of neglect. They're kids, your kids (universal your), you shouldn't gamble with their health.
And to be clear, I'm just as guilty as many for drinking at kid's birthday parties with the parents, and this isn't a moral superiority issue for me. I do belong to the same culture which has little problems with that. Being responsible has never been one of my stronger points which is the reason I always thought it would be a bad idea to have kids myself.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. This thread was solely about the bad apples fr the OP onwards.
Scientists are so monolithic.
For a lot of people being born can cause irresponsibility.
A fruit is a fruit.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Yes. And both a jellyfish and a human are animals.
Your point?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Look up.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
His point was that you were being cryptic and mistaking it for clever. He is right.
When alcoholism directly affects the wellbeing of a child, I agree with you. The bad example is a bit more tricky - maybe better to compare that with the bad example a parent sets by smoking at all (even if it is outside and not in the room with the children). Or basically with any bad behaviour by the parents. I am not a fan of legislating morality. The big difference is that the actual smoke affects the health of a child (though I am still not a fan of legislating that).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Tag team! Your problem is you assume motivations in people which you cannot be not sure off.
I felt little motivation to respond any further to condescension, but hey, if prompted by Team Rocket, what choice do I have?
a. I'm not disagreeing with Rand as you might have deduced from my post to Nessus. Yeah, I'm talking about oranges, and this thread is about apples.
b. I said: "a fruit is a fruit" to point out that although my point is "at the edges of the argument" (as conceded to Ness) there's still a connection. But if it's deemed outside the scope of this thread, I'll drop it.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
You're right, I should not have tried to infer your intent. I should have just left it at cryptic.
But would you agree that drinking in front of a child is more comparable to a child watching his parents smoke (say, outside) while not inhaling the smoke? And that smoking with the children in the same room is more comparable to letting them drink some alcohol? Of course the argument still somewhat stands since most people don't have a problem with parents letting their kids sip on a wine or beer (although at older ages, not with babies).Tag team! Your problem is you assume motivations in people which you cannot be not sure off.
I felt little motivation to respond any further to condescension, but hey, if prompted by Team Rocket, what choice do I have?
a. I'm not disagreeing with Rand as you might have deduced from my post to Nessus. Yeah, I'm talking about oranges, and this thread is about apples.
b. I said: "a fruit is a fruit" to point out that although my point is "at the edges of the argument" (as conceded to Ness) there's still a connection. But if it's deemed outside the scope of this thread, I'll drop it.
And the start of the thread, smoking while pregnant, can be compared to drinking alcohol while pregnant, which also leads to a higher risk of birth defects.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Hey! You're late to the game bud. I pre-apologized to you on page 1 ffs!
I try not to drink too much around the kids, btw. Sets a bad example.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I understand your point and I agree. However, drinking can have a big impact on people around you - just a totally different kind of impact than smoking. Obnoxious, aggressive, driving, and/or stumbling drunks are all the time causing problems. That's why drunk and disorderly is a crime. However, a guy sitting next to you in a restaurant drinking a martini, so long as he's not totally cocked, isn't going to be causing you trouble of any kind. Its just the excess that leads to problems, whereas with smoking, the amount the smoker does is irrelevant if he's smoking next to you at any given time.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You didn't even have to, so now you've got one offense freebee.
Let 'er rip!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Well, I know it means a lot to you, so, I didn't want you to feel bad.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote