Whatinell are kids going to do with 76 virgins?

Now I'm curious.
I'll go add that to my Netflix queue.

LOL!
Good one!

The barbarians have broached the gate!

Would that a pint or a liter?

Only seen it about 40 eleven dozen times.

Your question sounds like a justification of blue laws and such. All that could be remedied by keeping things simple. If you kill someone without cause, you should hang. Period. The use of drugs or alcohol prior to the killing should not be an excuse; in fact, it should be considered premeditation. Therefore, the severest penalty should come down on the head of the perp. If that law was strictly enforced, you'd see a lot less DUI and other kinds of mayhem, and you wouldn't need a law banning a legal behavior. The same thing applies to children. Since they aren't old enough to make decisions for themselves, their parents, or someone in authority, will make the decision for them. KISS.

You know that stupidity is never repealed outright. They always need to leave a little bit behind, to move the ship just 1 degree off course. Then on to the next bit of stupidity, and another 1 degree. Pretty soon, you're heading back the way you came.

What? They'll have bomb vests sitting in the corner?

They'll promise them the Muslim Heaven.

I have been knocked out twice, in the past;;; it's my excuse
when the shrinks approach in their white coats! -- j
.

Had to look that up which led me to A Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Further investigation reveals Netflix software predicts I'll like it and halfway like it a lot with three-and-a-half stars.
Since you can remember a character with a name like that, I guess you like that movie even more.

People should be free to drink (at their own ex-
pense), but not to force the results on others; that
is, they should not be free to drive drunk, and there
are cases where irresponsible behavior in public
(leaning up against people, etc.) due to drunken-
ness should be punished. Since alcohol can do
damage to the drinker, I do not think alcoholic
drinks should be given to minors (except maybe
in special cases, such as maybe if a doctor
recommends it as some sort of emergency
medecine). I think that the repeal of the Eight-
eenth Amendment was incomplete; Repeal still
allows states to have their Probibition; it should
have been repealed outright.

I am dino~
Hear me roar!
Someone pass that Pulitzer, please.

Reminds me of Kostas Portikalos' comment." Apple or orange, we both just fruit."

Probably to wherever they belong in the first place.
Uh oh -- I better cool it. I've got enough folks who hate me without football fans as well. It is rather brutal, though, for just being a game. The head trauma looks as if it claiming the lives of many retired players. It's almost as if we say to them, "Here's millions of dollars. In exchange, you'll give away 20 years of life."

There's a dead beheading? I'll take that one if I have to be the honoree at one.

What SuperBowl?? Won't be any.

Exactly. Which was your original point that Blarman did not understand and down voted. Then when I pointed out the same thing he created a whole group of "questions" implying things that a) do not logically follow from what I said and b) I did not say.

Wow. You would ask that I not put words in your mouth? That's hilarious since you doing that is what started us down this thread. You created an argument out of thin air to then argue with. But I have to admit it's good for comic relief.

So which of the alcohol laws I cited limit consumption? None. They are all directed at commerce. But nice try.

I understand your comment and would agree that Sharia far surpasses the application of present day Christian standards, but history has shown that to not always to be the case. My short comment did not contain my entire position on the subject. But you were right to call out the deficiency. I have seen too much religious hypocrisy in my days I guess.

where will the winners of the superbowl go next??? -- j
.

I just reviewed, and I agree that I used straw man inappropriately. Thanks for that catch. But my argument was not a straw man in either case. It was an examination of the precedent based on its conclusion. I simply asked if the conclusion was not only a rational outcome of the premise, but one that was argued as being the desired course of action. If it is rational and desired, logic is confirmed to be valid but not necessarily sound. If it is rational but not desired, one must then check ones' premises.

The last paragraph was in reference to the original assertion that "To be fair these laws have been on the books for christian churches for years." I simply assert that to call into claim the source of rationale is not nearly as solid as challenging the validity of the rationale itself.

"They are the Christian version of Sharia."

If you equate the two, you have no comprehension of Sharia. I met a family once in Cyprus who was from Iran about twenty years ago. They were seeking religious asylum in Canada to escape from Sharia. The woman told me of a day she had gone outside with makeup on and two boys not more than 12 had rode up to her on bicycles and slashed her face with razor blades held between their knuckles before they rode off. I don't see Christians doing that, do you?

"So you're ok with wholesale infringement of people's rights?"

Contrary to what you may surmise, I absolutely reject the notion that government can issue permits to engage in commerce. Yes, you can choose to drink. You can make your own moonshine if you choose. The question is where, when, and how much to drink before the effects of that alcohol render you incapable of making sound decisions. Once you are no longer capable of making sound decisions, you - by virtue of inebriation - give up your right of self-determination. Laws limiting alcohol consumption don't infringe on your rights by telling you not to drink - they warn you that if you do, you may lose your rights, and second that you then become a danger to others. Rights exist because we are conscious, but they are maintained only by self-discipline and judgement. If we intentionally disregard and override our self-determination to place it in the hands of a third-party, we intentionally void our claim to rights until such a time as we regain our senses.

"You're content to punish the masses for what a few do rather than punish the ones that do it?"

If I pass a law that prohibits people from jumping off bridges onto the rocks below, am I really infringing on their right to choose to jump? Not in the slightest. I'm merely trying to inform them that the repercussions for such are very negative. You seem to look at all laws as infringements on rights rather than warnings about negative repercussions. While there certainly are examples of laws that do penalize what should be unrestricted behaviors, I've never seen a right to intoxication being validated in either the Bill of Rights or a modern courtroom. I have, however, seen the results of broken homes and abuse cause by alcoholism - of people abusing their choices, intentionally inhibiting their self-control, and then taking that out on others through force. Should those people be individually punished? Absolutely. But unless the law applies equally to all, I can't very well claim just laws.

You do present a valid question about how far society can go in proscribing human behaviors - even behaviors acknowledged to be self-destructive. So as a follow-up question, do you believe society has a responsibility to warn of self-destructive behaviors through proscribed law, or should society merely suffer the consequences and give in to the perception of unlimited application of choice?

"You were against the repeal of Prohibition even though it proved completely ineffective at preventing the sale of alcohol and led to the rise of modern organized crime?"

I said nothing of the sort and would ask that you not put words in my mouth. Organized crime has existed from time immemorial and traffics in the sorts of goods that society has criminalized for whatever reason. I would note that slavery and human trafficking is greater now than it has ever been. Should we attribute its rise to the victory by the North in the Civil War? Or should we more properly attribute it to the desires of some to seek material wealth using force and coercion?

"Or are you just an idiot that likes to ask ridiculous questions with the insinuation that some other person might not be able to hold a more nuanced position than you merely because you cannot.?"

-1. I ask questions to cause people to check their premises - not to insinuate or burden with nuance. You are certainly welcome to challenge my assertions. I will see little reason to revise them unless there is a sound argument to do so. When you do, however, you will gain more traction by sticking to assertions backed up by empirical evidence and persuasive argument rather than vitriol.