Maybe not the right subforum for this but alcoholism/psychology so...move as desired.

I'm firmly on the wagon these days and that's partly due to my working out that drinking alcohol does in fact "go against everything I believe in." What do I believe in? That people need claim responsibility for our actions and thus behave responsibly.

Drinking alcohol seems the antithesis of this crux, being that to drink is, to a greater or lesser extent, to LOSE one's inhibitions, reasoning and higher "humane" intellectual properties and thus behave irresponsibly (again, to a greater or lesser extent).

I am ideologically opposed to drinking alcohol. Fundy fundy fundy! yes, it's true. Call me Comfort

Here are some of the other ways in which alcohol consumption is irresponsible, beside the fact of boozing's direct, unequivocal and in fact by very definition, quality of irresponsibility, in relating to the way it makes people stupid/inebriated, outlined in the OP. Also includes the benefits, for a positive spin, of not being saucey:

Ruinous to health – good health!

Very fattening - stay trim and lose lots of excess weight!

Causes dermatitis - have a clear complexion!

Costs an absolute FORTUNE - be LOADS more wealthy!

Can't drive if drinking – drive a lush car!

Alcoholic looks ugly – be generally faaaaar more likely to pull due to these factors!

Humiliating to drink - Stable life: no more ASBO fallout!

All the stress RE drunk deeds – no more "fuck, what might I have done last night?! ANXIETY!

Debilitating hangovers - feel lively and capable, not hungover!

Waste of time - Get good stuff done instead of being drunk!

Get a good night's sleep - not disrupted boozy half-sleep!

Frequently creates a mess - no need to clear up after yourself!

VERY polluting - save the planet by consuming faaaaar less!

V painful acid indigestion - freedom from acid indigestion!

Tastes horrible - consume delicious drinks instead of necessarily disgusting tasting alcohol!

Less point in living if one can't remember last night – good times to remember!

Depressing and stressful, drinking, due to all the downsides - fabulous new found peace of mind, self-esteem and optimism!

Boozing sets a bad example - sets a great example to others, to be dry!

So very reminiscent of myself, not so long ago, pre-epiphany.

Well, I'm having a drink. Being a "ZERO ALCOHOL! fundy" reminded me of...totalitarianism? Mussolini? Extremeism? Being up tight and therefore not cool? Up to once a week I'll have a drink....flexible, see? Not an alcoholic #pride

Keep It Real wrote:drinking alcohol does in fact "go against everything I believe in." What do I believe in? That people need claim responsibility for our actions and thus behave responsibly.

I don't get this. Alcohol does not, in any way, shape or form, absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

I have what many would describe as an extremely unhealthy relationship with intoxicants in general, and with alcohol in particular, but I've never taken any action that wasn't still entirely my doing.

To the extent that alcohol has contributed to my actions at all, it's only ever in exposing what I really think because the usual veneer of civility slips in the face of some behaviour where, were I sober, I'd have been able to keep the mask in place. What this should tell us is that behaviour exhibited while intoxicated is your base behaviour. In vino veritas, one of the few truisms that actually holds water. Alcohol doesn't take over you, it reveals you.

hackenslash wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:drinking alcohol does in fact "go against everything I believe in." What do I believe in? That people need claim responsibility for our actions and thus behave responsibly.

I don't get this. Alcohol does not, in any way, shape or form, absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

I have what many would describe as an extremely unhealthy relationship with intoxicants in general, and with alcohol in particular, but I've never taken any action that wasn't still entirely my doing.

To the extent that alcohol has contributed to my actions at all, it's only ever in exposing what I really think because the usual veneer of civility slips in the face of some behaviour where, were I sober, I'd have been able to keep the mask in place. What this should tell us is that behaviour exhibited while intoxicated is your base behaviour. In vino veritas, one of the few truisms that actually holds water. Alcohol doesn't take over you, it reveals you.

Same here as far "as an extremely unhealthy relationship with intoxicants in general, and with alcohol in particular" is concerned. What I've realised is that it's not the intoxicated "me" that is to blame for doing things that I regret afterwards, it's the sober "me" that gets irritated, angry, disillusioned, whatever and then makes plans to get intoxicated knowing FULL WELL what doing so might result in.

Thanks for the replies peeps. I'm too fucked up to process them IMHO right now but aim to before long. Thanks again.

hackenslash wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:drinking alcohol does in fact "go against everything I believe in." What do I believe in? That people need claim responsibility for our actions and thus behave responsibly.

I don't get this. Alcohol does not, in any way, shape or form, absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

I have what many would describe as an extremely unhealthy relationship with intoxicants in general, and with alcohol in particular, but I've never taken any action that wasn't still entirely my doing.

To the extent that alcohol has contributed to my actions at all, it's only ever in exposing what I really think because the usual veneer of civility slips in the face of some behaviour where, were I sober, I'd have been able to keep the mask in place. What this should tell us is that behaviour exhibited while intoxicated is your base behaviour. In vino veritas, one of the few truisms that actually holds water. Alcohol doesn't take over you, it reveals you.

I'm sorry to hear that you fall prey to the substances of ruin. Good luck with that in future.

I think the best way to answer your doubts about the veracity of the OP is with a highly succinct bit of "mathematical logic."

Check this:

If a behaviour would not have occurred without the actor being drunk, it is the alcohol which caused the behaviour and is thus the location of responsibility for the behaviour.

What a steaming load of stinking crap. Responsibility for the behavior lies solely with the person behaving in one way or another. That alcohol didn't fucking drink itself.

Keep It Real wrote:I'm sorry to hear that you fall prey to the substances of ruin. Good luck with that in future.

What gave you the impression that I'm the prey? Have I ever given you the slightest reason to believe that I'd ever adopt the attitude or status of prey?

I think the best way to answer your doubts about the veracity of the OP is with a highly succinct bit of "mathematical logic."

Oh, this will be fun. It's been a while since I was treated to your logic, let alone so smugly.

Check this:

If a behaviour would not have occurred without the actor being drunk, it is the alcohol which caused the behaviour and is thus the location of responsibility for the behaviour.

Yeah, but no, because that's not how it works. The behaviour is inhibited by societal mores instilled in you during your formative years, or at least on a 'fake it till you make it' basis. The alcohol removes the inhibition, and the mask of fakeness, revealing the unsanitised version of you that was always there waiting.

What you're doing here, by erecting this apologetic, is exactly the opposite of what you describe as 'everything I believe in'. Moreover, you're copping out on your behaviour toward others. Far from taking responsibility, you're shirking it.

Keep It Real wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:drinking alcohol does in fact "go against everything I believe in." What do I believe in? That people need claim responsibility for our actions and thus behave responsibly.

If a behaviour would not have occurred without the actor being drunk, it is the alcohol which caused the behaviour and is thus the location of responsibility for the behaviour.

If a rape would not have occurred without the victim being in a position of being vulnerable to being raped, it is the victim being vulnerable to being raped that's responsible for the behaviour, not the rapist.

I'm going to go shoot someone then claim the gun's responsible.

Dude, you've got a drinking problem. It has been explained to you before, quite compassionately. I feel that you are burning all your bridges on purpose, just like the typical alcoholic. You are not that special, many people have and do struggle with this. Seek help, do better.

Spearthrower wrote:I'm going to go shoot someone then claim the gun's responsible.

I have some suggested candidates for such attention.

Coastal wrote:Seek help, do better.

The nut of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ah. Freedom of choice and human nature. Essential ingredients of theism and libertarianism.

Hermit wrote:Ah. Freedom of choice and human nature. Essential ingredients of theism and libertarianism.

“Free will” and “responsibility” are evolved ingredients of human social behaviour. They are still useful concepts, given that we cannot yet predict each other scientifically as the (most probably) deterministic mechanisms that we are?

Instead of using science, we predict each other by evolved guesswork, using the similarity of one human brain to another. We guess what the other person wants, and then we guess what they are likely to do about it. It’s prescientific, but it works, so far, much better than the best of modern science. (Wikipedia on Theory of Mind here, 2019 experiment on ToM in great apes here.)

This evolved method of prediction gives us a somewhat indirect method of partial control: if an action is followed by a consequence that person doesn’t want (that is, punishing them), then they are less likely to repeat the action. This control by consequences is only going to work if the person’s action was in fact chosen and neither forced nor the result of mental illness, i.e. only if it was “free willed”. There is no point in punishing someone, or otherwise holding them responsible, unless the action they are being punished for was “free willed” in that limited sense.

All this is compatible with our being, in the end, wholly determinate collections of molecules which evolved through natural selection and which follow the laws of physics. We control, or rather partially control, other people by threat or promise of consequences, because we don’t know exactly how brains work. We fix a malfunctioning car engine or robot more directly. Science may eventually enable us to fix brains equally directly, which may or may not be a dystopian nightmare.

(It sounds as though Keep It Real's problem is harming himself rather than anyone else. If it's harming others, then denying personal responsibility because of mental issues is likely to lead to a worse outcome for Keep It Real, such as being held securely as a danger, rather than being fined or whatever as a capable person who has broken rules. Seeking help seems to be the best advice.)

zoon wrote:

Hermit wrote:Ah. Freedom of choice and human nature. Essential ingredients of theism and libertarianism.

“Free will” and “responsibility” are evolved ingredients of human social behaviour. They are still useful concepts, given that we cannot yet predict each other scientifically as the (most probably) deterministic mechanisms that we are?

Instead of using science, we predict each other by evolved guesswork, using the similarity of one human brain to another. We guess what the other person wants, and then we guess what they are likely to do about it. It’s prescientific, but it works, so far, much better than the best of modern science. (Wikipedia on Theory of Mind here, 2019 experiment on ToM in great apes here.)

This evolved method of prediction gives us a somewhat indirect method of partial control: if an action is followed by a consequence that person doesn’t want (that is, punishing them), then they are less likely to repeat the action. This control by consequences is only going to work if the person’s action was in fact chosen and neither forced nor the result of mental illness, i.e. only if it was “free willed”. There is no point in punishing someone, or otherwise holding them responsible, unless the action they are being punished for was “free willed” in that limited sense.

All this is compatible with our being, in the end, wholly determinate collections of molecules which evolved through natural selection and which follow the laws of physics. We control, or rather partially control, other people by threat or promise of consequences, because we don’t know exactly how brains work. We fix a malfunctioning car engine or robot more directly. Science may eventually enable us to fix brains equally directly, which may or may not be a dystopian nightmare.

(It sounds as though Keep It Real's problem is harming himself rather than anyone else. If it's harming others, then denying personal responsibility because of mental issues is likely to lead to a worse outcome for Keep It Real, such as being held securely as a danger, rather than being fined or whatever as a capable person who has broken rules. Seeking help seems to be the best advice.)

Some have posited, i.e. Dennett, that consciousness arises from Theory of Mind applied to one self

zoon wrote:This evolved method of prediction gives us a somewhat indirect method of partial control: if an action is followed by a consequence that person doesn’t want (that is, punishing them), then they are less likely to repeat the action.

It's called operant conditioning, and it works with reinforcing stimuli as well as aversion.

zoon wrote:This control by consequences is only going to work if the person’s action was in fact chosen and neither forced nor the result of mental illness, i.e. only if it was “free willed”. There is no point in punishing someone, or otherwise holding them responsible, unless the action they are being punished for was “free willed” in that limited sense.

If that were the case we could conclude that dogs have free will. Cats not so much.