3 ms·

But if keeping certain people from drinking reduces domestic violence measurably, clearly the activity does create risk for the public. That makes it fundamenta

But if keeping certain people from drinking reduces domestic violence measurably, clearly the activity does create risk for the public. That makes it fundamentally legitimate to regulate that activity, and the question then shifts to the efficacy of any particular sort of regulation. That's an enormous assumption that is being made. What about the social deadweight loss from a person's freedom and personal agency being diminished through substance bans?

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
That's a fancy way of saying "its ok to beat women because personal freedom"? Or did I interpret your $2 words wrong?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Rayiner appears to be talking about bans for a carefully defined small section of society - people with criminal behaviour when drunk. Vezzy-Fnord appears to be talking about the problem of bans when applied to everyone.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It's almost as if you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation humanly possible. I'd hate to see what other sophistry you'd employ. Also I'm quite amused how the original post referenced domestic violence and you immediately jump to it beating women. In any event, I was referring to the use of substances and the right to determine one's own destiny.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Um, you quoted the phrase about domestic violence, right? And 99% of domestic violence is against women. What did I miss, exactly?
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      And 99% of domestic violence is against women. Even the NCADV puts it at 85%, which is still under heavy dispute from researchers in the gender symmetry disciplines of IPV research. A 2010 CDC report still puts men much higher than this: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a... Not sure what tripe you've been reading.

3 ms·

But if keeping certain people from drinking reduces domestic violence measurably, clearly the activity does create risk for the public. That makes it fundamenta

by vezzy-fnord 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
That's a fancy way of saying "its ok to beat women because personal freedom"? Or did I interpret your $2 words wrong?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Rayiner appears to be talking about bans for a carefully defined small section of society - people with criminal behaviour when drunk. Vezzy-Fnord appears to be talking about the problem of bans when applied to everyone.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It's almost as if you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation humanly possible. I'd hate to see what other sophistry you'd employ. Also I'm quite amused how the original post referenced domestic violence and you immediately jump to it beating women. In any event, I was referring to the use of substances and the right to determine one's own destiny.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Um, you quoted the phrase about domestic violence, right? And 99% of domestic violence is against women. What did I miss, exactly?
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      And 99% of domestic violence is against women. Even the NCADV puts it at 85%, which is still under heavy dispute from researchers in the gender symmetry disciplines of IPV research. A 2010 CDC report still puts men much higher than this: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a... Not sure what tripe you've been reading.