Fact x Importance = News

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

If you can get away with killing during temporary insanity I don't see how this is much different, the person was clearly not of sound mind. Its not like we don't know the effect of alcohol on people. By the sounds of it he woke up and pissed on the first thing he could find.

 

Again, I'm not saying it isn't disrespectful in its own way, but it seemed rather unintentional. Maybe more public toilets should be open 24/hours because lets face it, none bloody are.

Temporal insanity is not exactly the same as drinking your own brains out. The difference is that when drinking, it's your own choice. If you're going to do stupid things when drunk - and by stupid I mean serious-stupid, not just laughable-stupid - then you should stop before it comes to that.

 

It's not so much the case itself. Yes, it was disrespectful, but worse things have happened. It's more the whole being drunk thing that bothers me. In this particular case, I think they're maybe overreacting, but in worse cases - like drunk driving or drunk cheating - I have no respect for the drunks.

 

Mind you, this is not an attack against drinking in general. I have no problem with that. It's an attack against being irresponsible while drunk.

[Ashley]

Perhaps its my own beliefs I'm bringing toward this but I see it as an attack against students. Any Sheffieldians wanna tell us what the local evening papers are saying?

 

And I don't think you can say "well...I think if I drink more I'm going to do something stupid" for numerous reasons, the lack of thought processes such as that while drinking and its a craps shoot at the end of the day. Its just as likely he could have thrown up on his own shoes, slept in a bin or gone home and curled up in bed.

[Paj!]

Temporal insanity is not exactly the same as drinking your own brains out. The difference is that when drinking, it's your own choice. If you're going to do stupid things when drunk - and by stupid I mean serious-stupid, not just laughable-stupid - then you should stop before it comes to that.

 

Have you ever been completely wasted drunk?

 

Cause I don't think drinking is ever conducisive to logical "choices".

[The fish]

The Daily Mail Fail Fails Again

More than 1,000 complaints have been made about a Daily Mail column on the death of singer Stephen Gately, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) says.

The PCC said the number of complaints received about the piece by Jan Moir was "approaching a record".

Moir's article said Gately's death struck a blow to the "happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships".

 

The article in question.

 

Bloody Jan Moir... What a colossal waste of space that woman is. The PPC website has crashed due to the shear amount of traffic complaining about it, and, to be honest, I'm not surprised.

Edited October 16, 2009 by The fish

[Ashley]

Jan Moir is a female.

 

Still a bigot of course, but a bigot with boobs.

[The fish]

Jan Moir is a female.

 

Still a bigot of course, but a bigot with boobs.

 

Oddly, the two Jan's I know are both male, so I assumed...

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Perhaps its my own beliefs I'm bringing toward this but I see it as an attack against students. Any Sheffieldians wanna tell us what the local evening papers are saying?

 

And I don't think you can say "well...I think if I drink more I'm going to do something stupid" for numerous reasons, the lack of thought processes such as that while drinking and its a craps shoot at the end of the day. Its just as likely he could have thrown up on his own shoes, slept in a bin or gone home and curled up in bed.

 

Have you ever been completely wasted drunk?

 

Cause I don't think drinking is ever conducisive to logical "choices".

No, I've never been wasted drunk. Yes, I know you're not thinking completely logical while drunk, even before you get completely wasted. But are you saying you cannot be held responsible for things you do while drunk? You may not have done them intentionally, and you may regret them afterwards - and that should of course be considered - but you can't just run away from your responsibility.

[jayseven]

Yeah but you don't magically get as drunk as the drink you're downing -- it takes time for it to take hold of your SOUL.

 

Nights like carnage kinda promote quick and heavy drinking (the main focus of the media's anger, not the public's), and, seriously, I've been there; you can go from stone-sober to utterly paraletic in 30 mins and once you've had the in-take, there's fuck all you can do about it.

 

I think the people taking the picture probably goaded him on - took advantage of his diminished mental capacity. And I think the lashings the public are dealing out with their comments -- "they should bring back hanging for scum like these" and the like -- well didn't we 'invade' Iraq to stop that sorta shit (Hussein's death irony aside)? Maybe we should just feed all sacred monuments with electricity and let 'honour' run its own course.

 

I think there should be 'diminished responsibility'. There's no way it's fair that he should be punished the same as a sober man doing it. Frankly, even I would be offended if a sober person did it because that implies intent to offend, a most heinous crime in my eyes. If someone sober did it and got the same punishment, there would be an outcry of unsatisfied nutters. The student (a mere idiotic 19) did nothing illegal to get that off his face, so he shouldn't be punished for that. You could argue that it's the government's fault for allowing such excessive drinking to even occur (but no! Don't follow that sort of mentality. Freedoooom!)...

 

and so on, and so on.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

As I said, I'm not focusing on the case at hand. That's indeed been blown out of proportions. I realise the type of drinking done here is excessive and can easily get out of control, but it's still people's own responsibility. If you decide to get drunk, you must be ready to take responsibility for your actions. Just because you're drunk doesn't mean you can get away with anything. It's of course not as bad as if you had been sober, but done is still done.

 

I don't think we disagree completely, we're just focusing on different points.

[Gizmo]

The problem is your only sober enough to decide to stop drinking when your sober. So once you've started drinking it rarely feels like a good idea to stop until after its too late.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

The problem is your only sober enough to decide to stop drinking when your sober. So once you've started drinking it rarely feels like a good idea to stop until after its too late.

I see what you mean, but while I cannot talk from experience, I know it's not impossible to stop drinking before it's too late.

[Ashley]

Well if jayseven can go from sober to drunk in 30 minutes (and I mean that in a good way of course ) then I would say in that context (i.e. that night out) it pretty much is. There is no room for thinking, just drinking. You're 0-60 in a matter of minutes.

 

Still, shocking and all that and I'm mostly concerned with how this will turn into an excuse for students or young people to get the blame.

[Gizmo]

I've noticed a pattern in that the people who complain about drinking are the people who have never done it before.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I've noticed a pattern in that the people who complain about drinking are the people who have never done it before.

Listen, I'm not complaining about drinking. I'm complaining about irresponsibility while drinking.

[Gizmo]

I've noticed a pattern in that the people who complain about irresponsiblity while drinking are the people who have never done it before.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well if jayseven can go from sober to drunk in 30 minutes (and I mean that in a good way of course ) then I would say in that context (i.e. that night out) it pretty much is. There is no room for thinking, just drinking. You're 0-60 in a matter of minutes.

Granted. But I still don't see how that excuses irresponsible behaviour.

 

I've noticed a pattern in that the people who complain about irresponsiblity while drinking are the people who have never done it before.

So? Does that make my point less valid? If I one day end up drunk - intentionally or unintentionally - I'll take responsibility for what I might end up doing.

[Gizmo]

The guys taking responsibility for it. That doesn't mean he deliberately pissed on a war memorial.

[Shino]

I've noticed a pattern in that the people who complain about abortion are the people who have never done it before.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

The guys taking responsibility for it. That doesn't mean he deliberately pissed on a war memorial.

Heavens no, I never accused him of doing so, nor do I believe he did. I think it's great that he's taking responsibility - that's all I'm asking. But like I've stated several times already, I'm not focusing on this case in particular. I'm talking on a general level.

[jayseven]

As I said, I'm not focusing on the case at hand. That's indeed been blown out of proportions. I realise the type of drinking done here is excessive and can easily get out of control, but it's still people's own responsibility. If you decide to get drunk, you must be ready to take responsibility for your actions. Just because you're drunk doesn't mean you can get away with anything. It's of course not as bad as if you had been sober, but done is still done.

 

I don't think we disagree completely, we're just focusing on different points.

I'm sorry but you don't go out with the intention to break the law, nor the expectation.

 

The kid has taken responsibility -- it's not like he's blaming the world for his problems, or claiming it was someone else, is it? The problem I have with your argument is "you must be ready to take responsibility..." and the general vagueness of such a term. How is one 'ready'? Is there a line drawn in the sand-desert of 'Potential Things That May Happen When Drunk"? Tied in with the "0-60" that ashley and I mention above, which are highly relevant to this point we debate over, even if you knew where the line was, you'd not know when you were about to reach it.

 

When I am drunk, I do get away with more things because I am drunk. That's a very generalising statement you make which, if I were to formulate a concise answer, would make me seem extremely nit-picky.

 

ETFC. You will not be as conservative once you are older and beer-bellied.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I'm sorry but you don't go out with the intention to break the law, nor the expectation.

 

The kid has taken responsibility -- it's not like he's blaming the world for his problems, or claiming it was someone else, is it? The problem I have with your argument is "you must be ready to take responsibility..." and the general vagueness of such a term. How is one 'ready'? Is there a line drawn in the sand-desert of 'Potential Things That May Happen When Drunk"? Tied in with the "0-60" that ashley and I mention above, which are highly relevant to this point we debate over, even if you knew where the line was, you'd not know when you were about to reach it.

 

When I am drunk, I do get away with more things because I am drunk. That's a very generalising statement you make which, if I were to formulate a concise answer, would make me seem extremely nit-picky.

 

ETFC. You will not be as conservative once you are older and beer-bellied.

I am not focusing on the case at hand. I've said that I don't know how many times now.

 

I am not sure what you're trying to argue here. That you should be able to get away with everything because you're drunk? Of course you don't go out with the intention of breaking the law, but if you end up breaking the law, you've still broken it. Of course it should be taken into account that you're drunk, but depending on the seriousness of the crime, you can't expect to avoid some form of punishment.

[jayseven]

I was arguing that being drunk should be taken into consideration and does make a difference to the severity of the crime (as you sorta agree with).

 

Stemming from this are general undertones of me decreeing the law ought not be so black and white (see: the bit where I say people would be outraged if a sober person was not punished more for the 'same' crime), as well as the odd bit of eye-rolling at the shallow, world-of-advertising-driven symbolistic mentality a lot of people have.

 

Plus I was being defensive about the nature of being drunk, and a slight bit confounded by your call to make an action into a contract (when you drink you hereby agree to accept any and all consequences of alcohol, subject to T&C*) and I don't understand, or maybe I don't think you understand, the limitations and/or extent to which you can say "ooh, this might happen, so should I drink another one in case it does?"

 

Hard to say without examples. Let's say you get horrendously drunk, and fall asleep in a doorway. You wake up to find a used condom sticking out of your bum and a "Hey! Now You Have AIDS Too!!" needle sticking out of your arm, to what extent do you hold blame for this particular consequence?

 

Yes, I am arguing for the sake of arguing. But I'm enjoying it, and I'm sure (hoping) you are too.

 

*Even if there are other worldly circumstances, be it natural or man made, fate or pure coincidence. Even if you have been taken advantage of, it is your fault for letting your guard down, because ultimately all people are obviously bad and we shouldn't rely on the good nature of anyone. And stuff. This isn't really well thought out.

[Paj!]

I think it's just the fact that Danny thinks one can make clear, thought-out and considered plans of action whilst off one's face that irks me.

 

I think the fact he was wasted completely, and as Jay said, almost certainly (think the article even mentions a group pulling him up off the ground in the first place) into doing the stupid shit, and then them taking pics, needs to be taken into account.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I was arguing that being drunk should be taken into consideration and does make a difference to the severity of the crime (as you sorta agree with).

 

Stemming from this are general undertones of me decreeing the law ought not be so black and white (see: the bit where I say people would be outraged if a sober person was not punished more for the 'same' crime), as well as the odd bit of eye-rolling at the shallow, world-of-advertising-driven symbolistic mentality a lot of people have.

 

Plus I was being defensive about the nature of being drunk, and a slight bit confounded by your call to make an action into a contract (when you drink you hereby agree to accept any and all consequences of alcohol, subject to T&C*) and I don't understand, or maybe I don't think you understand, the limitations and/or extent to which you can say "ooh, this might happen, so should I drink another one in case it does?"

 

Hard to say without examples. Let's say you get horrendously drunk, and fall asleep in a doorway. You wake up to find a used condom sticking out of your bum and a "Hey! Now You Have AIDS Too!!" needle sticking out of your arm, to what extent do you hold blame for this particular consequence?

 

Yes, I am arguing for the sake of arguing. But I'm enjoying it, and I'm sure (hoping) you are too.

 

*Even if there are other worldly circumstances, be it natural or man made, fate or pure coincidence. Even if you have been taken advantage of, it is your fault for letting your guard down, because ultimately all people are obviously bad and we shouldn't rely on the good nature of anyone. And stuff. This isn't really well thought out.

It's hard not to get carried away when arguing. Plus I'm tired, so that might not have improved my debating skills. The fact remains that ... well, I think we agree completely. There's not one point in your post that I disagree with. I might have come off as some uptight conservatist, but really, that's the last thing I try to be.

 

I think it's just the fact that Danny thinks one can make clear, thought-out and considered plans of action whilst off one's face that irks me.

 

I think the fact he was wasted completely, and as Jay said, almost certainly (think the article even mentions a group pulling him up off the ground in the first place) into doing the stupid shit, and then them taking pics, needs to be taken into account.

Oh, but I don't think you can make thought-out plans while drunk. If I gave that impression, I didn't word my argument well enough. Naturally, the drunker you get, the less ability you have to think rationally.

[jayseven]

Except in my case, I improve. *swigs second litre*