Poll of the Day > Explain how law and morality aren't the same thing?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sahuagin posted...

Zeus posted...

I was specifically responding to claim about it not being immoral. The argument isn't the previous law -- which policed morality -- but the permissive one today which doesn't police morality and is therefore a pretty good example of laws and morality failing to line up.

I am currently drinking a single Mike's Hard Lemonade with my dinner. I would love to hear an argument for how that could possibly be immoral.

Alcohol is a dangerous vice with a tremendous potential for not just self-harm, but harming others as well. It's closely tied to domestic abuse, rape, violence, and criminal misconduct. Knowing everything we do today about the immense harm caused by alcohol, the decision to imbibe is a reckless, amoral act. And I should add that virtually *every* substance abuse problem started small. Many years ago, my friend's ex used to have a single beer at dinner... and then that gradually grew until one day he was drunk out of his skull and threatening his wife and newborn with a knife. He's been in and out of both prison and rehab since then.
---

Zeus posted...

Alcohol is a dangerous vice with a tremendous potential for not just self-harm, but harming others as well. It's closely tied to domestic abuse, rape, violence, and criminal misconduct. Knowing everything we do today about the immense harm caused by alcohol, the decision to imbibe is a reckless, amoral act. And I should add that virtually *every* substance abuse problem started small. Many years ago, my friend's ex used to have a single beer at dinner... and then that gradually grew until one day he was drunk out of his skull and threatening his wife and newborn with a knife. He's been in and out of both prison and rehab since then.

so, your nearly a week lake claim is that it was literally immoral for me to have consumed a single alcoholic beverage? (notice you said 'amoral' rather than 'immoral', is that the trick?)

otherwise your argument is just a slippery slope fallacy, whoop-de-do
---

Sahuagin posted...

so, your nearly a week lake claim

As previously discussed, the notification feature pushes more recent updates to the top of my list.

Sahuagin posted...

literally immoral for me to have consumed a single alcoholic beverage? (notice you said 'amoral' rather than 'immoral', is that the trick?)

Immoral or amoral, it represents a callous disregard for not only your welfare but the welfare of everybody around you-- and, more importantly, you're not talking about a "single alcoholic beverage," you're talking about a regular dinner-time activity which, again, is how heavier abuse starts.

Sahuagin posted...

otherwise your argument is just a slippery slope fallacy, whoop-de-do

...because we're literally talking about an addictive substance where the choice to use is inherently immoral given the possible consequences. The decision to engage in the behavior at all is immoral. And you're defending this through false implication where you pretend that fault only exists at the high end of the spectrum rather than the decision to engage in the spectrum.
---

minervo posted...

Look at nazi germany.

/topic

Or pakistan or even saudi arabia
---

It makes since that Zeus would be against alcohol considering he grew up during the Prohibition.
---

Zeus posted...

Sahuagin posted...

so, your nearly a week lake claim

As previously discussed, the notification feature pushes more recent updates to the top of my list.

Sahuagin posted...

literally immoral for me to have consumed a single alcoholic beverage? (notice you said 'amoral' rather than 'immoral', is that the trick?)

Immoral or amoral, it represents a callous disregard for not only your welfare but the welfare of everybody around you-- and, more importantly, you're not talking about a "single alcoholic beverage," you're talking about a regular dinner-time activity which, again, is how heavier abuse starts.

Sahuagin posted...

otherwise your argument is just a slippery slope fallacy, whoop-de-do

...because we're literally talking about an addictive substance where the choice to use is inherently immoral given the possible consequences. The decision to engage in the behavior at all is immoral. And you're defending this through false implication where you pretend that fault only exists at the high end of the spectrum rather than the decision to engage in the spectrum.

I get drunk as fuck all the time never harm a fly. Or even leave my house. People who let booze drive them to criminal or dangerous actions are weak willed imo. Or it's a case of a drunk person's actions is a sober person's thoughts as some say and I just happen to be a legit decent guy.

Edit. I'm going wit weak will though as I've been around people I really had a dislike for to the point of wanting to punch them and never have even shit faced drunk
---

Zeus posted...

a callous disregard for not only your welfare but the welfare of everybody around you

right...

Zeus posted...

you're talking about a regular dinner-time activity which, again, is how heavier abuse starts

no, I happened to buy a few at our end of season sale at work, but I don't normally drink anything. I don't generally like the effects because I prefer having my wits about me.

Zeus posted...

...because we're literally talking about an addictive substance where the choice to use is inherently immoral given the possible consequences. The decision to engage in the behavior at all is immoral. And you're defending this through false implication where you pretend that fault only exists at the high end of the spectrum rather than the decision to engage in the spectrum.

"fault only exists" once fault is made. fault, as in direct harm to others. there are all kinds of potentially dangerous activities that are not actually dangerous if performed responsibly. saying that drinking a single drink is *immoral* because drinking many drinks *may* lead to immoral behaviour is asinine.
---