That's not an acceptable response to the question. Yes or No will suffice.
It does affect it, but it can be resisted. So yes.
Sacrifice your freedom for the well-being of other people or sacrifice the well-being of other people for your freedom... You choose.
So, you are arguing that the ends justify the means? How can this be applied universally?
My main point is that alcoholics cause more trouble in the long run.
Glad you could take a joke.
Australian society is actually fairly good, thanks. Have you been here before?
No.
What's the difference in between banning the Koran because people can become extremists? We are trying to educate the youth.
Educate the youth by making movies with clubs being shown as "places where cool people go and get wasted"? Yeah, that's really good influence.
Your people are hit with the idea that religion = terrorism. I've already told you. If I blew up a building and said that I was a Muslim and I did it because the Qu'ran told me to, would you believe me? Your media talks a load of bullshit and your naive little citizens believe it instantly. If you wanna argue about this, go find one verse that tells you to randomly kill people for no reason.
Actually, if the drinking becomes prohibited, I would not benefit. I do not suffer now as is, yet, when drinking became prohibited in the US in the 1920's everyone suffered.
The harm is not visible yet, but it will be in the long run.
In 1920, it was your group that caused the suffering. They would not let go of their addiction.
Too much freedom? I'm sorry, how treacherous of me to want to drink what I want. How dare I.
Indeed. How treacherous of you to harm both yourself and society. How dare you.
Why are you so verbally aggressive? If you starve someone of they so desperately love, what are the chances are that when you give them back that freedom they'll abuse it? It's like the cat and a ball of string.
Go ahead. As if I ever consumed anything harmful to my body just for pleasure.
And it's 'cause that sort of thinking that we can't reach a compromise. I'm letting you relieve yourself of your stress for once a year. Surely that's better than a complete ban?
So, taking away the rights of people would satisfy us? I don't think your being reasonable that the group that drinks would be satisfied. What do you do on a daily/weekly basis?
I don't drink, that's for sure.
The ends do not justify the means.
That isn't my point. You said that those 30,000 people would only affect themselves. I said no.
The point is that people can die from swimming. Does that mean you simply ban it?
Then let's ban eating since you can also choke to death sometimes.
I'm actually in favor of legalizing all drugs, even Cocaine, Heroin, and so on. I never ever disputed that alcohol is bad for you. I'm just saying that as a natural right, humans have the right to drink whatever they want. You disagree; why?
And give more opportunities for your own society to fuck itself up. Good idea.
Harm my society, I'll ban your shit. Natural rights my ass. Who even decided it was a natural right to harm society?
@Gurtaton: Japan is just as westernized as the west. Just look at this and tell me why you put lard in your bread.
http://kotaku.com/5484581/japan-its-not-funny-anymore
How is this relevant? I do not even live in Japan.
I agree. Can we also agree that instead of banning alcohol, we should deal with the people instigating violence directly?
No. I do not trust people enough not to abuse it.
Alcohol is actually part of our genetics. Our ancestors for generations have used alcohol to celebrate. Some societies such as the Greeks drunk almost all alcohol. Perhaps responsibly isn't the correct word. Most people don't bring harm to others, though.
Are you implying that traditions can't be changed? The Arabs, during Muhammad (S)'s time, were told to stop drinking and they did. Because of their religion, they were able to remove alcohol from their society. How are you any less capable of doing the same thing?
Banning cars follows the same logic as banning alcohol.
Alcohol is causes some people in society to harm others.
Banning alcohol would stop this.
Therefore alcohol should be banned.
Automobiles are a cause of numerous accidents and fatalities in society.
Banning automobiles would stop this.
Therefore automobiles should be banned.
Arguing the ends as if their relevant is arguing the ends justify the means. You could argue this if you'd like. I would wager based on the 2 above deductions that it is unreasonable, and when applied universally, folly. You would have to argue why the ends would justify the means in this specific scenario, and not the rest. Then, you would have to formulate something we can apply across the board.
The old "but this thing has just about the same potential" argument. The main inventor behind the cooking knife had the intention to make life in the kitchen easier. If the user uses it for any malicious purposes, you do not blame the inventor, but the user. Hands can be used to choke someone to death. Will you cut off everyone's hands? No, because the pros outweigh the cons.
In the same way, life without cars would be very difficult. And even though it has potential, it is not as harmful as alcohol.
What do you have to say about alcohol destroying brain cells?
