3 of 4
3
Another example of someone blaming others for their own stupid decisions
Posted: 10 February 2014 03:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6095
Joined  2006-12-20
macgyver - 18 January 2014 07:29 AM

Even if the bartender was offering her free drinks.. shes an adult. No one opened her mouth and poured the drinks down her throat. She willingly went to the bar with her friends and of her own free will picked up the glass and drank.

If she was enticed to drink then the person who did the enticing is partly responsible. This is important otherwise it lets people off the hook for encouraging dangerous or harmful behaviour. In using the term free will I suspect you are using the term to mean contra causal free will. Well no she didn’t have that and it’s important to recognise that.

The issue is really over how easy it was to fall over the railings after a few drinks. If it was too easy then she shouldn’t have been enticed to have the drinks because of the danger, but I doubt that it was.

[ Edited: 10 February 2014 03:56 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 05:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
StephenLawrence - 10 February 2014 03:48 AM
macgyver - 18 January 2014 07:29 AM

Even if the bartender was offering her free drinks.. shes an adult. No one opened her mouth and poured the drinks down her throat. She willingly went to the bar with her friends and of her own free will picked up the glass and drank.

If she was enticed to drink then the person who did the enticing is partly responsible. This is important otherwise it lets people off the hook for encouraging dangerous or harmful behaviour. In using the term free will I suspect you are using the term to mean contra causal free will. Well no she didn’t have that and it’s important to recognise that.

The issue is really over how easy it was to fall over the railings after a few drinks. If it was too easy then she shouldn’t have been enticed to have the drinks because of the danger, but I doubt that it was.

I completely disagree. Blaming the bartender lets the drinker off the hook for her dangerous and irresponsible behavior. There are very few actions that we take that aren’t influenced by some outside force. Using contra causal free will as the defining measure for personal responsibility would mean that none of us are ever responsible for anything we do. The man who recently shot the young father in a movie theater is innocent because he was enticed into shooting the man when popcorn was thrown in his face, Every smoker who ever smoked could blame the movies that portray smoking in a positive light for the cancer and emphysema they develop. Soldiers who are killed or inured in war can blame the recruiter who enticed them to join the service.

No one held that girl down and forced her to drink. She was not 10 years old. She was a grown adult. If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 06:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 10 February 2014 05:19 AM

No one held that girl down and forced her to drink. She was not 10 years old. She was a grown adult. If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.

I’m always amazed at your levels of reason and logic MacGeyver. It’s what makes me doubt you’re a doctor.
Alcohol is a substance that impairs judgement and is dispensed by licensed people who have to use judgement-by law(!) in dispensing it.
Whether it’s being dispensed in a 7-11 or at a bar by a bartender.
I already raised this point. Are you that dense that you forgot that part already? Because it’s highly relevant.

Where you lose any modicum of credibility is the last part of your statement…
“If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.”
Wow. That’s mature reasoning. You’re on the ball with that one.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6095
Joined  2006-12-20
macgyver - 10 February 2014 05:19 AM

I completely disagree. Blaming the bartender lets the drinker off the hook for her dangerous and irresponsible behavior.

If you encourage someone to do something and they do it, you share some responsibility.

There are very few actions that we take that aren’t influenced by some outside force. Using contra causal free will as the defining measure for personal responsibility would mean that none of us are ever responsible for anything we do.

Right and if you don’t use that definition you get the result I suggest.

The man who recently shot the young father in a movie theater is innocent because he was enticed into shooting the man when popcorn was thrown in his face,

That just doesn’t follow. The bartender, or the company were deliberately trying to get people to drink more.

Every smoker who ever smoked could blame the movies that portray smoking in a positive light for the cancer and emphysema they develop.

Enticing people to smoke *is* wrong. The problem with your view is it allows people to encourage others to harm themselves and profit from it and then blame those who suffer by saying it’s their own silly fault. Smoking is a great example of that.

Soldiers who are killed or inured in war can blame the recruiter who enticed them to join the service.

The point is the recruiter is encouraging the person to become a soldier and does share some responsibility for that person becoming a soldier.

If we are going to let such people off the hook for their own decisions then they should not be allowed to make decisions at all. She shouldnt be allowed to drive, or vote, or enter into a contract, or drink.

I’m not sure why you think it was her own decision, clearly she was being deliberately influenced. But anyhow it depends upon whether it was wrong to encourage her to drink in those circumstances. I’ve said probably not in this case.

[ Edited: 10 February 2014 07:08 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

If you encourage a 5 year old to do something and they do it you are certainly responsible. If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves. Isn’t that supposed to be the difference between an adult and a child? An adult is supposed to be mature enough to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those decisions. If you are not willing to do that then you shouldn’t be allowed to make adult decisions.

Using the excuse that her judgement was impaired because she was drunk is ridiculous. She wasn’t drunk when she made the decision to get drunk. Once you make the unimpaired decision to take a drug that impairs your judgement you don’t really have the right to blame anyone for the decisions you make after that point.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6095
Joined  2006-12-20
macgyver - 10 February 2014 07:16 AM

If you encourage a 5 year old to do something and they do it you are certainly responsible. If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.

I think you’ll find this is based on your intuitions about free will macgyver. I’m going to leave it there since this is not a free will thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
StephenLawrence - 10 February 2014 07:28 AM
macgyver - 10 February 2014 07:16 AM

If you encourage a 5 year old to do something and they do it you are certainly responsible. If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.

I think you’ll find this is based on your intuitions about free will macgyver. I’m going to leave it there since this is not a free will thread.

Of course you have to accept free will as a premise or the whole idea of assigning blame to anyone at all is irrelevant. How could you blame the bartender if there is no free will since he could not control his actions either? As you said this is not the place for that discussion. We will assume for the sake of this thread that everyone has free will.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 10 February 2014 07:16 AM

If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.

If I encouraged a bunch of senior citizens to invest in my “Capital Fund” which was fraudulent should those people have no recourse
against me because they are adults and should have known better?

If I’m the leader of a conspiracy to commit a crime and I encourage other adults to join me and do the deed, should I get away scot free?

As straw man, or irrelevant as these examples might seem, they are relevant in ways.

The best example is this:
Long before Love Canal burst upon the scene, Hooker Chemical Co. sold the deed to the polluted land to the City of Niagara Falls for $1.00.
They knew it was polluted, they knew the city knew it was polluted, and the city knew it was polluted.  Hooker even warned N.F. about the dangers.
In the end, Hooker was sued and lost.($$$ Now they are Oxy Chem) You know why? They had a higher responsibility. It isn’t enough to just warn the party that the land is polluted. They were the stewards of that land and let a poisonous time bomb get passed along to another entity.
It’s that simple.  That’s what the court eventually said in their findings.  It isn’t enough to just warn and put disclaimers. A responsible,
entity must ensure no harm comes out of a deal. An entity isn’t doing due diligence when they knowingly pass along a poisonous, polluted
plot of land. Even if they warned the other party.
This goes for many other legal decisions. Commonly in product recalls or the like. If a company makes a dangerous product, it isn’t enough to
put warning stickers on the product.(warning toaster may overheat and cause fire)
The same goes for cases like the cruise ship. I explained that already.  The cruise ship has an inherent responsibility in making sure it’s
customers are safe and in a safe environment.

Using the excuse that her judgement was impaired because she was drunk is ridiculous. She wasn’t drunk when she made the decision to get drunk. Once you make the unimpaired decision to take a drug that impairs your judgement you don’t really have the right to blame anyone for the decisions you make after that point.

No, it’s not ridiculous. Alcohol impairs judgement. The bartender had a responsibility to cut her off because he knows that after a few drinks
she is no longer capable of using sound judgement to stop herself from drinking more. Bartenders cut people off all the time.
You would think a cruise ship would have stringent rules on letting their guests get hammered on a big boat way out in the middle of the sea.
I’m sure they do have such guidelines.
But these cruise ships are all about profit. Just a couple of weeks ago another one pulled into port with hundreds of people sickened with
Listeria. Bad business. Bad Housekeeping. They can escape plenty of regulations by registering their ships under foreign flags.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1286
Joined  2009-10-21
macgyver - 10 February 2014 07:16 AM

If you encourage an adult to do something and they do it they have no one to blame but themselves.

Yeah. Why should we have any laws at all? Safety laws? who needs ‘em? Standards for automobile windshields? Too much expense. And advertisers, they should be able to say whatever they want, Budweiser should have ads of people completely impaired hooking up at 3AM then living happily ever after. And alcohol is a drug like any other, so let’s stop doing any testing on any drug. I never read those little inserts anyway. And I should be free to buy drugs from any guy on the street, to heck with all those doctors.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

There is a big difference between lying and deceiving someone and encouraging someone to do something when both parties have equal knowledge about the correctness of what they are doing. An individual who presents themselves to be an expert ( a doctor, lawyer, financial advisor etc) who encourages people of lesser expertise to do something that the expert knows is wrong is committing a criminal act by abusing their position of authority. Someone who decides to start drinking and then drinks to a point of drunkenness is well aware of the consequences of their actions and a bar tender is no more expert in that area then the drinker is.

I’ve been drunk only twice in my life time (Freshman year in college) and while alcohol certainly removes inhibitions its a huge exaggeration (and an often misused excuse for bad behavior) for anyone to claim that a drunk individual was not aware of the consequences of their actions while under the influence. The girl in question had to be well aware of what she was doing and that she had too much to drink. Her friends were probably more aware than anyone and they did nothing to stop her. She’s not suing them though. She’s only gong after the people with the deepest pockets.

I think its also a lawyer created myth that a bartender can police and diagnose drunkeness. Intoxication is a spectrum. Someone doesnt suddenly become drunk. At what point does a bartender cut someone off? Remember he is behind the bar in club with possibly hundred of patrons. He can’t do coordination tests on everyone there every 10-15 minutes as conditions change. The person buying the drinks may not even be the ones drinking them. IN many cases these places are only in business because people go there TO get drunk and party. If they stopped everyone who appeared to not be 100% sober they would be out of business. Cruise ships are especially sensitive to this since many young people go on cruises for the express reason to party.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Really, Mac, are you claiming that alcohol level doesn’t affect judgement?  As an experiment I suggest that you go to a large party (without your wife), carefully index about ten young ladies as to attractiveness, have about six martinis (no food) in short order and see if those ten ladies have become any more attractive.  Then drive home through city traffic and on freeways and, if you survive, next day think back on whether you drove within the speed limit, made complete stops at signals, gave others the right of way.  Later, ask anyone you knew at the party about whetheryour late evening behavior had changed.  Then you might be more skilled at making judgements about whether achohol damages judgement of adults.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Better yet, since one often tends to forget or to falsify one’s memories, have a friend along to videotape your behavior from sobriety to 6 X martinis, then watch them the next day to see how well your adult judgement and behavior weathered the alcoholic assault.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 02:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26

There is a difference between knowing right from wrong and doing the right thing. I am saying that someone who drinks knows right from wrong as well as anyone else but drinking removes the inhibitions that otherwise hold you back from dong things you know are wrong. So letting a drunk person off the hook is like letting a sociopath or someone who is emotionally immature off the hook simply because they don’t have the ability to control their impulses when they do something stupid or wrong. In some ways its worse because the drunk presumably knew what they were doing when they decided to get drunk and did it anyway so they are more culpable.

Do we give criminals a lighter sentence if they are drunk when they commit their crimes? If not then this girl should not get a free pass for drinking to excess. She knew exactly what she was doing and did it anyway.

There is also an element of alcohol as an accepted excuse here. People who drink think they can use alcohol as an excuse for bad behavior and many people are willing to give them a pass with a wink. I think that more than anything removes inhibitions that causes people to misbehave when they drink. They think they can just say “but I was drunk, I didn’t know any better”

[ Edited: 10 February 2014 02:42 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Macgyver:

I am saying that someone who drinks knows right from wrong as well as anyone else but drinking removes the inhibitions that otherwise hold you back from dong things you know are wrong.

  Sorry, Mac, but this is a case where you are quite incorrect.  It’s much more than just lowering inhibitions against misbehavior.  A drunk does not know but ignore his moral behavior when sober.  That morality can completely disappear from what remains of the person’s consciousness. 

I’m not claiming that they should be given a pass for anything they do to cause others pain or difficulty.  Rather, they can do things that may harm themselves without even realizing it.  An example:  Many years ago I walked into the lavatory next to a meeting room.  One of the other guys (who had had a great deal to drink) was standing at a urinal.  As I finished he began to curse violently.  Then I saw the problem.  He had opened his pants, took out his penis (but it slipped back inside his pants) and began to urinate.  He wasn’t even aware of the fact that he had completely soaked the front of his suit pants from crotch to ankle with urine until he reached down to close his fly.  I assure you, Mac, that he didn’t do this just because of lowered inhibitions.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 04:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
mid atlantic - 20 January 2014 01:44 AM
VYAZMA - 19 January 2014 12:13 PM
mid atlantic - 19 January 2014 02:52 AM
VYAZMA - 18 January 2014 09:21 PM

A ship’s Captain should never let crew members or passengers wander around willy-nilly, drunk off
their asses.  There’s way too many dangerous conditions.

That’s why the passengers are there in the first place. They can do whatever the f*** they want.

Ohhh.  I didn’t know that. Passengers do whatever the heck they want on cruises.
So they can assault other passengers if they want?
Can they steal food from the galley?
Can they throw other passengers possessions overboard?
Can they try to sabotage the ships engine room?

Go ahead MidAtlantic….answer these. Can you answer these questions like an adult? Like a cogent adult?

They can try, and many will. Reckless behavior is inevitable on cruises simply because the people who go on cruises want that type of experience. The ship has to tolerate some crazy behavior, or people won’t pay in the future if they think it will be boring.


There’s a way to have a nice time on a cruise without crazy behavior from fellow passengers. Avoid the big ships.  I’ve been on wonderful cruises that hold about 100 passengers.  They are not “Party Boats.”. They draw a better clientele.  The people who take them are not looking for a drinking party.  Passengers are sensible,  intelligent and interesting. The best small cruise I have taken was on the Noble Caledonia line (a British Company).  The experience was just about perfect. Small cruises cost more, but IMO, the extra cost is worth every penny.  I would never get on a big ship again.  (I did once and it was tolerable, but it was also not one of the enormous ones.) Save your money for a real cruise and a rewarding experience.  I hear river cruises are also nice, though I have not taken one.

Lois

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3