Though in general i think science needs more rigor, this a was a fund article with a legit point. And the findings listed on drinking were interesting. (does reduce pain, and some people don't get hung over)
Also, i'm one of those people who rarely suffers anything resembling a hangover, even after those rare nights of heavier drinking, but then maybe drinking only hard spirits helps, because sugar-loaded alcoholic drinks like wine, beer and cocktails are famous for creating some of the most monstrous hangovers among those who get hangovers in general.
Because of this, when older, one should pay more attention to observing a healthy diet, which contains smaller amounts of harmful substances (e.g. alcohol) and enough quantities of all nutrients, including those that can be produced by a human body, but in insufficient quantities in older people (e.g. long-chain omega-3 fatty acids).
Btw hard liquors contain tons of sugars by principle, and ie good dry red wine comparatively little, in reasonable amounts of course.
Seriously? At a quick search all results contain something like "Generally, pure alcohol or hard drinks such as vodka, whiskey, tequila, gin, and rum are absolutely sugar-free.".
Are you speaking of cocktails or the 20% alcohol sweet drinks?
What exactly sounds sad? That some people can occasionally enjoy a few drinks and socialization without a hangover? Don't jump to some silly puritanical conclusion that this simple statement makes one an alcoholic or childish.
Many people of all ages enjoy a few drinks with friends without being sad infantile alcoholics, and nothing about "adult life" precludes being able to enjoy such things in moderation. How about climbing down from that high horse of absolutist judgement about how others should live their lives.
Also, no, do a simple bit of checking, hard liquor general contains very little or no sugar.
And yeah, I do not think there is much harm in drinking alcohol socially either. Get a buzz, take a cab / Uber home, etc. If someone starts a fight because they are piss-poor drunk, or drives under the influence, that does pose harm to society, which changes a lot, IMO. But if you go home and grab a beer, why would I be against that? Not my business. I especially hate it when people think it is their business and they want to control other people's lives.
Like damn, come, swap with me (not you), have a chronic pain with severe anxiety and depression and we will see if you could just think it away like I am sometimes being told to do, or you know, just let me take what works for me without harming anyone, including even myself.
You're claiming over 1/8th of the planet is alcoholic? Citation needed.
We'd show up to a frat party with a survey and breathalyzers and got people to line up before things got ... weird. As soon as word caught on that we were measuring blood alcohol levels, the boys would start chugging alcohol at dangerous rates to see who could blow the highest BAC. So much for promoting safe drinking behavior! And this would obviously invalidate the research, so we had to go in like a strike team and collect as much data before word got out!
> The researchers were on site to test how well alcohol can numb pain.
> “Ethically, we can’t ask people to drink alcohol to levels they do in their day-to-day lives,”
> the point beyond which they felt proper consent was hard to establish.
How is this study ethical? Researchers declared they do not need formal consent, because that would be too hard, and just went on, to torture impaired people!
Universities were going on and on, how drunk people can not consent, and even saying hi to someone in a bar is unethical! And now serious research institute pulls this stunt with torturing people without their consent!
Actually they've been saying that drunk people can't consent to sex, not to saying "hi." Bit of a difference, that.
I think it isn't black and white. There are acts which carry a greater responsibility than others, and there are levels of inebriation (the word itself already implying different levels of soundness of mind). Driving a car can be dangerous to self and others, hence is forbidden from a certain level of intoxication; sex is complicated, and is generally, widely accepted to require some form of consent in many countries, hence it becomes more problematic as the alcohol level rises.
You can agree to things when you're drunk, obviously. But are you of sound mind and body to not regret that agreement later? That's a specific kind or quality of consent which actually has no official definition or modifier-word (even though it's what a lot of people mean). Examples of what I mean: Do you have enough information to consent without regretting it later? That's informed consent. Have you stated with words or documents that you consent? That's explicit consent. Have you already agreed to certain things when entering the bar (like the rules of the bar, and law in general)? That's implied consent. Are there some things you agree to and others you don't? That's granular consent. Do you agree to be part of my mailing list, or will you click this button if you don't want to be part of my mailing list? That's opt-in and opt-out consent (and passive consent).
But there is no modifier word for "I both have all available information and am of enough sound mind and body to not regret this decision later". Use of this meaning in the wrong context doesn't make sense. You don't need information or sound mind and body to agree to basic social conventions, like a greeting, or holding open a door. And you implicitly consent to things like the Law as an adult member of a country.
Because of the lack of nuance when talking about the concept of consent, it has created a lot of confusion and backlash. It would be less controversial if we had more specific terms of art, to accurately communicate ideas and come to more logical conclusions. I think most of us all agree on acceptable forms of conduct, but we talk past each other when words don't carry enough information.
People of "sound mind and body" sometimes later regret their choices. That sounds like an impossibly high expectation.
How can a person with impaired judgement be expected to make sound decisions relating to the consequences of their actions? You could say "well, the person should have known better while they were sober than to start drinking when they knew they'd have to drive soon", and I could use that same logic for sex.
Well, public intoxication is illegal where I live, so presumably no.
Situation A: A man is in a situation where he feels he can't refuse to shake someone's hand, so he does so, feels disgust at the clammy handshake, and then contracts a common infection.
Situation B: A man dates a woman, roofies her, takes advantage of her, but it turns out she's into that and nothing else happens.
From what you're saying, situation A would be much more "immoral" than situation B.
Just saying there's a ton of grey area. I've never taken sex too seriously, meaning if I did something I regretted while impaired, I just shrugged it off. Other people obviously feel sex is a much bigger issue and regrettable situations are absolutely unacceptable to the point where it's their partners fault for somehow knowing how impaired you are, determining whether your consent is valid, etc. I personally don't get it, how it's become victim shaming to expect people to control their own selves. I get that date rape type stuff is very real and tragic but again, lots of grey area between that and regrettable drunk night out type stuff that's way more common. All to say, there exists a wide spectrum of what any given person may feel about this exact subject.
How this intoxication level was measured? I seriously doubt they carried scales and analyzed blood samples, before asking for consent!
https://www.startribune.com/does-booze-relieve-pain-u-resear...
The same “breath” reading could give you 15% different results depending on the country the test is taken in…
https://www.dart-sensors.com/breath-alcohol-conversions-for-...
Tongs do not sound gentle!
And then there's a whole spectrum of other definitions all the way from there to the real definitions of rape. They're generally always in favor of women, for example if a man and a woman are drunk and they have sex, he is a rapist. If the woman didn't actually want to have sex but did it anyway without clearly expressing any kind of reluctance, guess what? Rapist. He should have read the signs, taken the hints, analyzed her body language etc.
Personally I think people are responsible for their own actions. If you get drunk and do something you regret, that's on you. If you don't like it, don't get drunk. If you go along with someone else's suggestion that's on you. It's your responsibility to stand up for yourself and say no if you don't want it. Men are people too, you can't just lock up some dude for years and completely destroy his life because some girl regrets having sex with him. What a lot of these people seem to be suggesting is that it should essentially be illegal for men to participate in sex, so that any woman he's had sex with can at any time completely destroy his life on a whim.
I get that there is nuance and grey areas, statutory rape is a thing and there are many examples of men abusing their power and status to get laid. That's a difficult topic but honestly if Harvey Weinstein tells some aspiring young actress that he'll cast her in a movie or whatever if she blows him then IMO it's still on her to stand up for herself. It's not pleasant, it's not okay, but it's also not rape. I do believe that kind of quid pro quo is illegal in some jurisdictions and by all means make it illegal if you can. It's basically prostitution, it just isn't rape.
On the other hand you have women actively using sex to manipulate men, it's not like these things only go one way. There are also lots of men who have had their lives ruined just from being accused of rape with no evidence.
A rule I've found to be generally quite reliable in life is that the extremists are always wrong. Any political group exists on a spectrum, and if they're too far to one side of that spectrum then they're probably crazy. That's my view of the extreme feminists and similar groups, they're too far out and their demands are unreasonable. They're not looking to make things equal, they're looking to give women power and advantages over men.
I mostly agree with you, but this is a fuzzy boundary.
Boss: do ... with me or maybe I don't feel like employing you anymore
I employ you, if you ... me?
I just don't see any reason to use the word rape for it. I think people want to use it because it sounds bad and they want to express that this person is a bad person, but on the other hand it devalues the word in a way.
Like did he rape someone or did he "rape" someone? Any time I hear about some celebrity rape thing that's what I wonder. Is the guy a actual rapist or are people just putting the rape label on a less severe (although possibly still despicable) act?
That's what I disagree on. What's your definition of rape? I would define it as forcing someone to have sex. Is extortion not forcing someone?
Here's a thought experiment, imagine the offer is way worse. Imagine it's like "I'll mow your lawn if you have sex with me" is that rape? If you really don't want the sex you just say no and that's that, you mow the lawn yourself. I don't think most people would consider that person a rapist.
The difference here is that a better offer is harder to refuse. That does change the situation in a meaningful way but it's still entirely voluntary.
I'm not so sure about that. That's entirely the point here.
I think the difference here is that there is a work contract, but the sex isn't mentioned anywhere. If you would write that in the contract, then you would be right it's "just" prostitution. But in the cases we are discussing, that's generally not the case.
The situation between employee and and employer is generally not that of two equal-powered persons, which is why we have tons of protections there, including doubt if sex was really consensual.