Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

    Alcohol ain't never done nothing good for nobody, so as far as I'm concerned the drinking age shouldn't even matter. (And yes, that was a quadruple negative).

    As stated before, us Americans only drink to get drunk. Ideally we would be able to instill responsibility in our children so that they'll deal with it appropriately. Other countries use alcoholic beverages as just that - beverages. We use the **** as a drug.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

      Well, you know, it is a drug, so I can't say it's too surprising. But I agree with you that way, way too many people use it just to get drunk. Pretty sad to me as someone who doesn't find it appealing at all (alcohol; let alone being drunk).

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        The age of the people that would be needed to make this change are already over 21. Therefore, few of them care about this issue. Of those, several would worry about fixing what they consider to be 'not broken'. Plus, it doesn't affect them.... they're already over 21.

        That's a mighty big hump to get over. The best bet would be to try and get some small, small changes and hope it can expand from there. IE: Get it lowered for members of the military so that you either need to be 21 or 18 if you have a military card.

        Ultimately, I doubt this movement can get much momentum.

        -Bball
        Why just military personnel?

        If I'm told I have enough brain power/smarts/decision-mkaing skills whatever to decide that I can fight and die for my country, then I should be able to decide if I want to sit in a bar and have a beer.

        Anyone over the age of 18 can formulate that decision, and those who are able should get the same benefit as those who decide to enlist. The military have their fair share of idiots, so it's not like their more mature or something else to that effect.

        At the age of 18 in the US, you are an adult. You have all the same rights/privileges as someone who is 40, but one. It doesn't make sense.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
          Alcohol ain't never done nothing good for nobody, so as far as I'm concerned the drinking age shouldn't even matter. (And yes, that was a quadruple negative).

          As stated before, us Americans only drink to get drunk. Ideally we would be able to instill responsibility in our children so that they'll deal with it appropriately. Other countries use alcoholic beverages as just that - beverages. We use the **** as a drug.
          I' couldn't disagree more. unless, you're ready to back up your narrow view of American habits with actual data.

          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1857447.shtml

          Americans don't drink to get drunk. Maybe you and your friends do, maybe in the limited America of your personal experiences people do, but that's not a fair representation of Americans as a whole.

          Nearly 40% of Americans who drink prefer wine. And while you can get drunk on wine, wine is not a "lets party until we puke" beverage. It's often expensive, taken with food and enjoyed in intimate settings.

          Just over 40% of Americans who drink prefer beer. Despite what you might see at a Nascar fan's frat party, beer is generally a casual enjoyment taken with food or during "down time" like watching a game. Very few people who enjoy wine and beer have more than 3 in one sitting.

          Let's talk about why this is a law in the first place.

          The legal drinking age was uniformly raised to 21 due to pressure from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving lobby. While the lobby was against alcohol for every conceivable reason, drinking related auto accidents was the triggering epidemic that needed a cure.

          Why is drinking such a problem? Because it's too often mixed with driving. Why is it mixed with driving? Because most cities and towns do not have a safe, reliable transportation system.

          In cities where trains, busses and cabs are frequent and available, very few people give a care about having an extra round at the restaurant. Either you're in the mood for one, or you are not, either way, you're generally safe.

          In those environments, drinking is immeasurably "safer" than in a city like Arlington, TX, where there is no transportation system and the entire town is one giant suburban sprawl. There, if you have a few glasses at dinner, you have to drive several miles home. The simple idea of an 18 year old having 5 beers and then driving home scares the crap out of me, but not that much more than a 40 year old doing the same thing.

          Drinking itself is not a problem in my eyes. I will say that both stigmatizing and romanticizing it are equally annoying to me.

          The real cultural problem here is that people would much rather use the government to force conformity on others instead of opening a dialogue and educating each other about responsibility.

          Taking responsibility away from the responsible is never a good solution in my mind, whether we're talking about alcohol, drugs, guns, medical procedures, ANYTHING.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Why just military personnel?

            If I'm told I have enough brain power/smarts/decision-mkaing skills whatever to decide that I can fight and die for my country, then I should be able to decide if I want to sit in a bar and have a beer.

            Anyone over the age of 18 can formulate that decision, and those who are able should get the same benefit as those who decide to enlist. The military have their fair share of idiots, so it's not like their more mature or something else to that effect.

            At the age of 18 in the US, you are an adult. You have all the same rights/privileges as someone who is 40, but one. It doesn't make sense.


            I'm not disagreeing with you. My point was that I think it would be almost impossible to get the age lowered overall in one big step. Therefore, the best strategy would be a longterm view and just try and get some tiny inroads and incrementally get it where you want it to be (or as close as possible).

            Yes, that might take years. ...But the alternative of getting it lowered all at once just is not realistically going to happen and as long as that is what is being asked for, it will be a terribly hard row to hoe that will just have wasted time that could've been put to better use on smaller battles that DO have some hope of passing (and get you closer to your ultimate goal).

            IOW- Maybe you get alcohol legalized for military personel (which seems an easy argument to win... especially if you start it with beer and wine before trying to legalize harder stuff). Then you get illegal consumption laws weakened and/or eventually removed entirely for 18 and up. Then you get warm beer and wine sales legalized for 18 year olds at grocery stores and the like (but not liquor stores or bars where harder stuff is served). Then you get cold beer and wine sales approved to 18 and up in places that serve food (so an 18 year old can get a burger and a beer). Then maybe you get nightclubs setup to cater to 18 and above with dividers, armbands, etc (but no hard booze served).

            That's the only way I see it happening and I realize that would be slow going and most 18 year olds today could be atleast in their 40's before the ultimate goal of legalizing booze sales to 18 year olds would ever reach the stage where it would realistically be on the horizon.

            But trying to get it all at once just is not going to happen in the short term and would take even longer to get to a climate where it might be a feasible possibility. I can't foresee a scenario where it could ever happen as an 'all in one' declaration. The problem will always be that the majority of people making the decision will be over 21 and will be past the point it affects them. Plus they'll see it as political poison. A no win situation to go out on that limb.



            -Bball
            Last edited by Bball; 08-16-2007, 02:36 PM.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

              I found the info here very interesting:

              http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/nig...0822intro.html

              America's Drunkest Cities


              1- Milwaukee
              2 - Minneapolis/St. Paul
              3 - Columbus
              4 - Boston
              5 - Austin
              6 - Chicago
              7 - Cleveland
              8 - Pittsburgh
              9 - Philadelphia
              10 - Providence
              11 - St. Louis
              12 - San Antonio
              13 - Seattle
              14 - Las Vegas
              15 - Denver/Boulder
              16 - Cincinnati
              17 - Kansas City
              18 - Houston
              19 - Portland
              20 - San Francisco-Oakland
              21 - Washington/Baltimore
              22 - Phoenix
              23 - Los Angeles
              24 - New Orleans
              25 - Tampa
              26 - Norfolk
              27 - Dallas/Fort Worth
              28 - Atlanta
              29 - Detroit
              30 - Indianapolis
              31 - Orlando
              32 - New York
              33 - Miami
              34 - Charlotte
              35 - Nashville

              Notice which cities are in states that have "liberal" drinking laws (like ability to buy alcohol on Sunday and serve until 3:00 or 4:00 am). Also notice which cities are "known" for their night life and "party" reputations. New Orleans, Las Vegas, LA, New York, Miami. These are the towns where alcohol is more readily available and more interwoven into daily life, yet they barely rank.

              I welcome a lowered drinking age, and I discourage one city using the FEDERAL government to try and fix its problems. We saw it in the 80's when drunk Ohio tried to ruin everyone else's good time, we saw it in the 90's when LA tried to take EVERYONE's guns away, we see it in modern day with agricultural states trying to prevent others from growing hemp.

              I say this so many times when it comes to politics: your problems are not my problems, so stop taking away my freedoms because your town can't handle them.
              Last edited by Los Angeles; 08-16-2007, 02:48 PM.
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                Bball,

                There are parts I agree and disagree with you on.

                However I highly doubt that a law is going to be passed that 18 year olds can go buy beer and wine at wal mart but can't go to a bar and have a beer. I don't really get how that makes any sense for either side.

                It still isn't the full rights for the 18-20 year olds and these people still can get drunk and drive easily so it won't make MADD happy.

                However if baby steps are taken as the ones you have said it will only increase the chances of the drinking age being lowered. Here is one that happened recently.

                http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...lcohol_070511/

                So I guess in that sense I kind of agree with you.

                I don't think that lowering the drinking age will happen soon but I don't think that changing laws here and there is the way to do it. Not because it will take 20 years (although I don't believe this will take 20 years) but because it really doesn't make much sense IMO.

                IMO you need to just set up a different system.

                - Lower the drinking age to 18
                - Have a drinking license for 18-20 year olds, maybe everyone.
                - Up the punishment for DUIs and contributing to a minor consuming.
                For example if you have a drinking license you could say the punishment for a DUI is automatically losing your driving and drinking license for 2 years. No exceptions.

                If you buy alcohol for a minor and get caught then you lose your drinking license for a year or two, maybe more. People would still buy the alcohol for minors i'm sure but I bet you that people would make sure they don't drink and drive.
                - Up alcohol education
                The government will make more money from the sale of alcohol if the drinking age is lowered, therefore use it on alcohol education.

                Just show people that alcohol isn't all about being drunk to have a good time.

                Don't get me wrong, I enjoy partying and stuff but I stick with beer. I enjoy just having a couple beers here and there but the problem is as someone who isn't 21 I don't really have the chance to have a beer or two. I can't go buy myself a case of beer and drink one here or there, I can't go to the local bar/tavern with my friends and just sit and talk over a few beers.

                Alcohol and being drunk is put in high regard in America. Like I said, I love beer, and I like to party and get a little drunk, but I can enjoy alcohol when i'm not drunk because I like the taste of beer. I don't really get these people who just drink vodka and nasty tasting ****, you can't tell me that they would actually go to a restaurant and order a glass of vodka with their burger and fries and enjoy it.

                I think that with NYRA and John M. McCardell that if they really push for this that it can happen. Obviously you will always have Americans who feels that the drinking age should be lowered but it will take the NYRA and someone like McCardell (and more like him) that are really pushing for it.

                And of course there will always be MADD and people against it.

                I'm wondering have the Presidential Canidates been asked about this issue? If they were it would be interesting to see Americas response to them.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                  Are the numbers on drunks really reliable? How would they possibly have an accurate number of drunks when you can't verify drunks that stay home or otherwise aren't caught or documented?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                    Originally posted by Mal View Post
                    Are the numbers on drunks really reliable? How would they possibly have an accurate number of drunks when you can't verify drunks that stay home or otherwise aren't caught or documented?
                    The way you put this made me laugh.

                    Are you referring to the Forbes list I posted? If so, go to the link and the methodology is linked therein.
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                      I only skimmed your posts, I admit. Still, how could there possibly be a number even close to the real deal? It's not like everyone who gets wasted gets arrested or makes a log entry.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                        Originally posted by rommie View Post
                        I don't really get these people who just drink vodka and nasty tasting ****, you can't tell me that they would actually go to a restaurant and order a glass of vodka with their burger and fries and enjoy it.
                        People's tastes are different. I HATE pickles, but obviously I know some people love them. Same with alcohol.

                        I can sit down and have a pretty stiff rum and coke with my food and enjoy it.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                          I guess I need a counterpoint to understand the attitude that "drinking to get drunk" is a singularly American phenomenon. Are the French more sober? Germans? The Japanese? The English? Puh-lease.

                          I had two roomates at IU: one Canadian and one German, and let me tell you, I can hold my liquor but I was never even close to their league.

                          Please give me an example of a country more prudish than America on this issue. (OK, give me an example other than China and North Korea.)

                          I think a lot of the "information" in this thread is based on perception. And I think many of you watch too much TV. America is not what you see in advertising and entertainment. Advertising and entertainment do not accurately portray "American attitudes". Supermodels do not drink Miller ****ing Lite, and I hang out with models so I at least know that much. You will not have a central west apartment if you drink Skyy Vodka, You are not a tough burly man if you can actually accomplish the near impossible task of choking down Jack Daniels.

                          Americans ARE brand loyal, but I can't believe for a second that they are bigger drinkers than foreigners.
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            I only skimmed your posts, I admit. Still, how could there possibly be a number even close to the real deal? It's not like everyone who gets wasted gets arrested or makes a log entry.
                            Are you still talking to me?

                            Maybe the title was misleading to you. at no point does the Forbes article try to "count the number of drunks." (What is a drunk anyway? An alcoholic?) It conducted 35 city-wide surveys that asked questions like "Have you had an alcoholic beverage in the last 30 days?" It then compiled all the data, had 5 major categories like "casual drinking," "binge drinking," "alcoholism," etc. and ranked the cities accordingly.

                            Maybe the title should have been "the nation's drinkingest cities"
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                              Originally posted by Stryder View Post
                              It's all about the culture.

                              We, as citizens of this country, are taught that alcohol is only for adults (21 years of age and over). Alcohol is off limits to those under 21. Here, in the States, it IS a big deal if a person under the age of 21 has some wine or a beer. It is made to be a big deal. It should not be.

                              In other countries, where there is a lower age, or even no legal age limit, children are reared as if alcohol is not for adults only. It is part of the culture. Having some wine at dinner is not a big deal for a child in some countries.

                              It is all about culture.
                              I agree. People make a huge deal about kids drinking when they really should not. I doubt the drinking age will be moved down any time soon, but I could see it going down to 18 in the next 20 years or so.

                              However, I could care less about the drinking age. Anyone over 18 can easily get alcohol..and by not being able to go into bars, you save yourself a ton of money. The cost of liquor/beer in bars is outrageous. I prefer drinking at a party or with some friends for cheap.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up

                                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                                Why is drinking such a problem? Because it's too often mixed with driving. Why is it mixed with driving? Because most cities and towns do not have a safe, reliable transportation system.

                                In cities where trains, busses and cabs are frequent and available, very few people give a care about having an extra round at the restaurant. Either you're in the mood for one, or you are not, either way, you're generally safe.

                                In those environments, drinking is immeasurably "safer" than in a city like Arlington, TX, where there is no transportation system and the entire town is one giant suburban sprawl. There, if you have a few glasses at dinner, you have to drive several miles home. The simple idea of an 18 year old having 5 beers and then driving home scares the crap out of me, but not that much more than a 40 year old doing the same thing.
                                Spot on, the best way to prevent drink driving at any age is effective public transport.

                                The real cultural problem here is that people would much rather use the government to force conformity on others instead of opening a dialogue and educating each other about responsibility.

                                Taking responsibility away from the responsible is never a good solution in my mind, whether we're talking about alcohol, drugs, guns, medical procedures, ANYTHING.
                                In Australia, the drinking age is 18. The driving age varies between 16.5 and 18 depending on what state you are in. When kids turn 18 they do not instantly start drink driving. My parents offered me alcohol at home from about 14 or 15 onwards and reinforced that I should drink water when I am getting drunk. Education should be available to explain to kids that alcohol is a drug just like pain killers and illicit drugs. It can be easily abused and should be respected and used responsibly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X