![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyrasantae
First off: This post, reposted here for your reading convenience:
I'd like to add:
9. My stance is often misunderstood. We prefer to see things as either black or white, right or wrong, for or against. I am not a non-drinker or against drinking. My topic of argument is "what is an acceptable amount to drink on any given occasion," and my position is "no more than three drinks," because three drinks is the personal limit that I stick to, and I haven't actually hit that limit ever since I determined what that limit was. That's a good thing. However, the reason I request this limit on people is reasoned upon the following points:
10. I have stated before in this journal, if people want me to go drinking with them, or wish to drink in my presence, they can only drink as much as I do, each by each. This is because my definition of fun is intelligent, comprehensible conversation with my peers. And if my peers choose to pursue their definition of fun (normally it be get giggly and drunk), then they effectively alienate me and rationalizations such as "well this is how we have fun, and we respect your way of having fun but we want to do it our way and you can do it your way and we'll leave you alone" is in itself disrespectful because it does not address my conception of "fun."
11. Thus, since my personal limit is three drinks, then it is implicitly imposed on the people I am drinking with the same limit, regardless of their body type or tolerance level.
12. I typically do not drink in social settings, that is, I do not prefer to drink with a group. It is something that I do alone (for example, right now I'm enjoying some beer in my engineering beer mug while I type this), not because I'm anti-social or because I'm asking to become an alcoholic, but because I don't drink to facilitate socializing. For me alcoholic beverages are luxury beverages. I can barely afford them and when I do drink, most of the time I only take one drink. It's like eating potato chips. It's not exactly a healthy snack but I'm willing to indulge once in a while - indulge meaning to have one bag of chips, not five.
Just getting a few things straight:
1. On another board I wrote:I'm not trying to preach my anti-drunkeness act, I'm only stating what rampant talking about the "funs" of boozing makes me feel - angry and homicidal. And I know what's caused my anger - it's the holiday season, when lots of people do it.
That is, if I sound angry to you, it's because I am.
2. I don't have anything against *drinking* *as an activity*, I'm against *drunkenness* and drinking *as the most common aid to socializing between groups of friends,* as well as against drinking as *the thing to do at a party.* As several other people have noted, some of the best parties are dry parties.
3. There are definitely negative things about excessive use of alcohol. Whether you use or abuse it longterm or not, my speculation is that more brain cells get killed when your brain cells are already weak from being attacked by alcohol than are killed if you take the same number of drinks over many days.
4. I lost a relative to alcohol abuse and he was someone I really wanted to meet, but never got a chance to (he passed away years before I was born).
5. I'm a little unclear on the argument that 'alcohol is good for you [physically],' all I've heard was the one about red wine being good for you, but that's because of the anti-oxidants in the fermented grape juice and not the alcohol. Please enlighten me on this.
6. I used to have RL friends who were open to my ideas. When I parted from them to go away for uni, they became party maniacs, drinking a lot themselves and also pressuring their friends to get drunk, and suddenly closing their minds to my ideas. Because of this I have lost my trust in them, since they regularly impair their judgement and are thus not worthy of my company. (This is because I value self-control and responsibility for one's own actions very highly.)
7. I suppose the first exposure I ever had to what a party with drinking involved was quite an extreme one (again, this link ), and thus my first impression was very negative. (Actually I had encountered predrinking before this, and I felt negatively towards it as well, but it was on a smaller scale and it didn't impress upon my mind so greatly.) Now we all know, first impressions are (often) everything. Although...I'm sure that even if something so extreme *wasn't* my first impression, my views wouldn't have been much different.
8. Many people have told me that there are indeed people out there in the world who do agree with some of my beliefs, I just have to find them. I haven't found them in the people around me in real life, and I chose to extend the boundaries of my search and reach out to people farther away that I might never meet in person. But for that to happen, I have to explain my beliefs and ideas. This is what I'm doing. I'm not preaching it (as I would normally do ;)), I'm stating how I really do feel about the issue. If it makes me angry, I'll say I'm angry. If I'm happy about someone's choice, I'll say that too.
I'd like to add:
9. My stance is often misunderstood. We prefer to see things as either black or white, right or wrong, for or against. I am not a non-drinker or against drinking. My topic of argument is "what is an acceptable amount to drink on any given occasion," and my position is "no more than three drinks," because three drinks is the personal limit that I stick to, and I haven't actually hit that limit ever since I determined what that limit was. That's a good thing. However, the reason I request this limit on people is reasoned upon the following points:
10. I have stated before in this journal, if people want me to go drinking with them, or wish to drink in my presence, they can only drink as much as I do, each by each. This is because my definition of fun is intelligent, comprehensible conversation with my peers. And if my peers choose to pursue their definition of fun (normally it be get giggly and drunk), then they effectively alienate me and rationalizations such as "well this is how we have fun, and we respect your way of having fun but we want to do it our way and you can do it your way and we'll leave you alone" is in itself disrespectful because it does not address my conception of "fun."
11. Thus, since my personal limit is three drinks, then it is implicitly imposed on the people I am drinking with the same limit, regardless of their body type or tolerance level.
12. I typically do not drink in social settings, that is, I do not prefer to drink with a group. It is something that I do alone (for example, right now I'm enjoying some beer in my engineering beer mug while I type this), not because I'm anti-social or because I'm asking to become an alcoholic, but because I don't drink to facilitate socializing. For me alcoholic beverages are luxury beverages. I can barely afford them and when I do drink, most of the time I only take one drink. It's like eating potato chips. It's not exactly a healthy snack but I'm willing to indulge once in a while - indulge meaning to have one bag of chips, not five.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Just because
Date: 2005-01-08 11:58 pm (UTC)Re: Just because
Date: 2005-01-09 12:07 am (UTC)Re: Just because
Date: 2005-01-10 08:45 am (UTC)Also, as was said above, I absolutely disagree with your imposing of a 3-drink limit regardless of physical ability. I can confidently and soberly say that my limit is much higher, and at 3 drinks (beer, usually, when this volume is consumed), I'm still able to carry on a rational and coherent conversation. It's extremely ignorant and antisocial to assume that because I order a fourth one, my attention is turned to alcohol rather than to you. Jesus Christ, if you wanted attention, why not just ask?
Re: Just because
Date: 2005-01-10 02:04 pm (UTC)By luxury I do not imply "fun." Luxuries do not necessarily have to be for entertainment. It's a different taste, like a change from the regular milk, juice, or coffee. It just so happens to have a nasty side-effect of affecting behaviour, and that's why it must most definitely be consumed in strict moderation.
Imposing the limit implicitly is not judging you by your capacity, it is respect for me in a place where my other beliefs aren't respected. It's the least anyone can do for my happiness' sake. I am personally offended by people who drink more than that in much the same way an Orthodox Jew might be offended if given non-kosher food.
Anyway, to quote DarkFlash:
If there's one thing I've learned about this gal in the four months I've known her face-to-face, it's don't mess with her, because she's not backing down.
So please, nobody anger her. I won't be responsible for any messes.
Re: Just because
Date: 2005-01-11 10:20 am (UTC)I would actually respond to both of you by saying that the nature of a discussion is relatively independent of whether or not alcohol is present, but highly dependent on the dynamic between the people involved. There are, in my experience as someone who also abhors fatuous small talk, people who are more than willing to discuss topics of substance over the alcoholic beverage of their choice (or alternatively, 3+ alcoholic beverages of their choice). You just have to find them.
What's the difference between analyzing a musical score with a budding composer over pizza and analyzing a musical score with a budding composer over pizza and three beers? Answer: Three beers.
Following the aforementioned premise that with the right selection of people (admittedly a meticulous challenge), intellectual conversation will occur regardless of the volume of alcohol consumption, I would respond to this by affirming the following: a) what constitutes "moderation" varies according to an individual tolerance level, not your tolerance level; b) if you are concerned about the seemingly pointless removal of personal inhibitions, remember that these inhibitions can and often do include a certain bashfulness in discussing intellectual topics on the grounds of feeling underqualified. If anything, in a lively conversation of that nature, you want people to speak their mind.
However, you are right in that alcoholic beverages are ridiculously expensive, and such expenditures should be made in strict moderation.
The difference is that the hypothetical Orthodox Jew is the one eating the food. You are not the one consuming the beverages of others. Let's say, for example, that I am philosophically opposed to fair-trade coffee. Should I be telling people that around me, they shouldn't drink fair-trade coffee?
If the effect were one akin to say, second-hand smoke in that it has detrimental second-hand side effects and generally smells funny, then you would have a point. Unfortunately, it isn't.
Stop blaming the drinks and start blaming stupid people.
A tea-sipping gentleman at heart,
- Nick (http://www.ualberta.ca/~ntam)
Re: Just because
Date: 2005-01-11 11:26 am (UTC)If the effect were one akin to say, second-hand smoke in that it has detrimental second-hand side effects and generally smells funny, then you would have a point. Unfortunately, it isn't.
But it does have detrimental second-hand side effects! It's like denying that ethanol vapour, in the correct concentration, can make you intoxicated...and it smells funny :P ...I should know.
Stop blaming the drinks and start blaming stupid people.
I am actually blaming people - notice how often my arguments are about how people are stupid enough to make these choices that make them act stupidly. It makes no difference to me either way - I'm eventually going to explode either because I want to protect people from the harm from the drinks, or I'm going to explode because stupid people need to be taught a lesson ;)
Re: Just because
Date: 2005-01-12 01:53 pm (UTC)If you went to supper with your parents, would you have more than 3 drinks? I would guess the answer is no (you may be amongst those who would, I don't know). Why can't it be the same for certain individuals - if nothing else, out of respect for that individual?
-Forgottenlord
wtf?
Date: 2005-02-07 09:08 pm (UTC)Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-07 11:38 pm (UTC)Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-07 11:55 pm (UTC)Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-07 11:56 pm (UTC)Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-08 05:08 am (UTC)Sure kyrasantae has an ego, but that doesn't mean she is wrong to have this fight. You assume that because drinking is a social norm (heck, you could even argue that its a social fact - in fact, I think her soc prof did do it. Kyrasantae - if you could link that post, would be great), it shouldn't be fought against. If you disagree, I'd like you to attempt to think about this:
200 years ago, it wasn't just a social norm but a social FACT that woman were the lesser sex. They could not work, could not fight, could not get an education. However, (in particular, over the last century) people who felt that this was wrong slowly started pushing for equality. From my list of people who you might be, I would guess that you are probably a woman, so my point to you is this - you are in this residence attending this university because people - women in particular - started fighting against the social norm. They set goals that were perhaps unachievable at the time and would have caused most people to just laugh at them, but they set those goals nonetheless and you have received the benefits from them.
From your post, I can tell you have not fully attempted to actually think about and analyze kyrasantae's arguments. Before you blast her beliefs again, at least have enough respect for her to actually think about her arguments and try to understand why she believes them. If you just want to mindlessly blast her arguments because you disagree with her - either grow up and don't do it anonymously or keep your mouth shut. I'd rather I know who it was that disagreed with me so that I can think of a more applicable argument for that person.
That wraps up my response to your slightly more "thoughtful" of your two posts. It seems I exceeded the maximum lenght - posting again in a second
Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-08 05:08 am (UTC)It is unwise, perhaps, to be enemies with everyone, but that does not mean it is wise to be friends with all. It is in error to believe so. Sure you want to be civil with as many people as possible (and I'm pretty certain you've met kyrasantae so I ask you if you thought she was civil with you when she met you?), but being civil with them doesn't mean you classify them as a friend. A friend is someone you care about and will try to help if it is possible to help them and you trust them to help you if they can.
"I mean, if you like someone, and they choose to get drunk around you, is that so bad? I mean, getting drunk usually doesn't hurt anyone. Yes, it does hurt some people, but if people want to have fun that way, who are you to judge them?"
Right there, you proved a major component of why kyrasantae fights drunkeness. However, I will use it to fight your own argument (and certainly, if you are who I think you are, you hardly have the right to comment about "judging others"). If you saw a friend hurting themself - say from just simple masochism to anything as complex as contemplation of suicide, would you not do everything in your power to help them? Would you not try to make sure they don't hurt themselves? If that's true - then why would you claim that people that hurt themselves through drinking shouldn't be judged and/or helped.
I wouldn't entirely disagree that it's a bad thing to be very limiting in the picking of friends, but that does not mean it is not a bad thing to accept everyone as a friend. I would claim they are both extremes and, as with most realities - the extremes are the worst cases while the moderate positions that you find closer to the middle are much more practical. Sure kyrasantae may be a bit more extreme in her selection of friends, but at least she isn't talking about her friends all the time behind their backs. At least when she is your friend, you can be assured that she is a true friend. To claim she's looking for a faultless person would be in error - else I would not be friends with her either.
"Deal in whatever way you see fit." - I agree - so why don't you back off and let her live her life?
Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-08 05:57 am (UTC)Re: wtf?
Date: 2005-02-08 12:10 pm (UTC)I think if anyone is bullheaded enough to argue the points;
Date: 2005-10-02 12:40 am (UTC)My own rules include "No head games". If someone wants to play head games, fine, they may. But I will not play the game with the person, and I will no longer include them in my social life afterwards.
I think that's the same thing kyrasantae is saying. If you want to be a drunk, fine, go be a drunk. But she's not going to join you in that activity.