9am is too early.

Originally posted by @secondson
Probably only for politically correct reasons.

How so? I had 'irresponsibly posing serious danger to others' in mind. Is that reason for having a moral objection a "politically correct" one to your way of thinking?

Originally posted by @fmf
The "consequences" of drinking are for each person drinking to weigh and manage. Perhaps that is a lesson that can be extracted from the story.

Knowing you we can expect just about any kind of "extraction" from most any story. That is as long as it lines up with your opinion.

Originally posted by @fmf
Immoral acts are immoral acts, drunk or sober. Being drunk is not inherently immoral.

Where've you been? Everybody knows getting drunk impairs judgment and causes people to do very unethical and immoral things.

Originally posted by @secondson
Knowing you we can expect just about any kind of "extraction" from most any story. That is as long as it lines up with your opinion.

Do you agree that, morally speaking, the "consequences" of drinking are for each person drinking to weigh and manage as a matter of personal responsibility?

Originally posted by @secondson
Where've you been? Everybody knows getting drunk impairs judgment and causes people to do very unethical and immoral things.

It's the behaviour that may be unethical and immoral. Getting or being drunk - in an of itself - is not an unethical or immoral act.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's the behaviour that may be unethical and immoral. Getting or being drunk - in an of itself - is not an unethical or immoral act.

If someone jumps off a 40 story building, that's okay right?
It's only the hitting pavement part that's a problem and results in death. Right?
Because "in and of itself", jumping is fine.
(Your "in and of itself" is a ridiculous statement, because it dismisses "cause and effect)

Originally posted by @chaney3
If someone jumps off a 40 story building, that's okay right?

Okay in what way? What are you on about?

Originally posted by @chaney3
.Your "in and of itself" is a ridiculous statement, because it dismisses "cause and effect)

If you don't understand why the phrase "in and of itself" applies in this context then that is why you're posting as if you cannot follow what's being said.

Morality is about "effect" on others in one's human interactions.

The "cause" of immoral behaviour is for each person to consider. We are not all the same.

When I get drunk it is not like jumping off a 40 ft building. If it is for you, and if crashing onto the pavement below is analagous to you behaving in a morally unsound way, then don't drink.

Originally posted by @secondson
Where've you been? Everybody knows getting drunk impairs judgment and causes people to do very unethical and immoral things.

Wrong. Alcohol removes inhibition and encourages the person to do things that they want to do. So if you are inherently immoral and unethical then the alcohol would encourage that behavior. Other people may be good and decent and the alcohol encourages good deeds and acts of kindness.

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you agree that, morally speaking, the "consequences" of drinking are for each person drinking to weigh and manage as a matter of personal responsibility?

Of course! Who wouldn't?

But what about the victims of those that get drunk and do immoral things?

I just heard tell of a man that was so drunk when he got home he took his infant child from its mother, threw the child into a snow bank and then held it up by the throat and screamed at it.

I'm of the opinion that such an individual should suffer the "consequences" and be caned so severely they never drink again.

Originally posted by @rajk999
Wrong. Alcohol removes inhibition and encourages the person to do things that they want to do. So if you are inherently immoral and unethical then the alcohol would encourage that behavior. Other people may be good and decent and the alcohol encourages good deeds and acts of kindness.

So says the "inherently" moral and ethical hypocrite.

Originally posted by @fmf
If something good has happened to you in your life then I am glad for you. Here you have become somewhat of a mean-spirited blowhard ~ a brand of forum blather you used to be an antidote to.

To tell you the truth, old forum comrade, I had trouble telling who was who up until last year. Since my change I found it very easy to decipher the people here. I'm a 'mean-spiritied blowhard' you say? Well fair enough-to an extent. . Nearly everyone has pissed me off to some degree,(2 or 3 notable exceptions), but those who consistently take me out of context, who refuese to see the spirit of my posts I have utter disdain for. If I swear at someone it is based on all of their posts, not just the last one.

Originally posted by @fmf
How so? I had 'irresponsibly posing serious danger to others' in mind. Is that reason for having a moral objection a "politically correct" one to your way of thinking?

To my "way of thinking" you'd take any politically correct position on morality as long as it isn't God's morality.

Originally posted by @secondson
I just heard tell of a man that was so drunk when he got home he took his infant child from its mother, threw the child into a snow bank and then held it up by the throat and screamed at it.

Sounds terrible.

Originally posted by @secondson
To my "way of thinking" you'd take any politically correct position on morality as long as it isn't God's morality.

If you want to talk about "sin", talk to people who believe in supernatural lawgivers. Do you agree with me that drunk driving is immoral in so far as it 'irresponsibly poses serious danger to others'? If you do ~ which surely you do, right? ~ what is "politically correct" about our stance?