Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can A Person Intentionally "Up" Their Tolerance To Alcohol To Avoid The Sin Of Drunkenness?
10/12/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 12/10/2013 11:03:54 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Laissez-faire capitalist

LOL really


61 posted on 12/10/2013 12:40:31 PM PST by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Perhaps I was careless in my wording. I was affected but NOT drunk.

My blood alcohol would not have been considered legally or otherwise drunk. Any alcohol whatsoever causes impairment, it’s just to what degree.


62 posted on 12/10/2013 12:41:34 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Again you’re quibbling about degree. Affected IS drunk, you might not have been blackout drunk, might not have been falling down drunk, but you drank enough to get affected, you got drunk. Problem here is you’re fighting against the connotations of the word, “drunk” has certain societal meanings that are very negative, but the denotations, the actual definition is that it’s just drinking enough to be affected. Which you were.

If you were unsteady you almost certainly would have blown better than .05 which is the line in most places.


63 posted on 12/10/2013 12:44:58 PM PST by discostu (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
How diversionary of you.

Not diversionary at all, you don't drink, yet you inquire about 'beating God' at the drinking game. No questions about angels and pins?

65 posted on 12/10/2013 12:54:10 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Two 4 oz glasses of wine with dinner for 180# man is NOT drunk. Nuff said.


66 posted on 12/10/2013 1:01:42 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Doubt it.

I’ve been at the three tequila shot limit for a few years.

Four is “carry to bed” time.


67 posted on 12/10/2013 1:03:58 PM PST by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tipsy
Synonyms
intoxicated
mellow
loaded
tight
merry
happy
drunk

You said you were tipsy. The much more interesting question is why are you so upset about the idea that indeed you were drunk? Why is it such a big deal? You’re willing to admit you were tipsy, you’re willing to admit you were unsteady, so you’re willing to admit to a synonym AND a symptom, but you cower from the word itself. It’s just a word, it’s not worth all the weaseling you’ve put in trying to avoid it.

Really, tonight I’m going to a movie were they serve alcohol, I’ll have a beer, maybe even 2, I’ll be tipsy, and therefore drunk, but sober before I go home. See how easy.


68 posted on 12/10/2013 1:07:06 PM PST by discostu (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: xone

No, but being subject to the authorities is, and the authorities say (at least in California) that .08 is drunk.


69 posted on 12/10/2013 1:26:20 PM PST by Excellence (All your database are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Because you are flat wrong. You said one must get drunk repeatedly in order to develop a higher tolerance for alcohol. That is simply not true.

One can and does devlelop a higher tolerance over a period of time from drinking regularly even in relatively moderate amounts over time.

I stated that I was careless in my use of the term “tipsy” and “unsteady”. It wasn’t an accurate designation. “Affected” would be a more correct description.

And contrary to the impression you have, I have no problem with myself or anyone else getting drunk but I do take issue with characterizations that are blatantly false.


70 posted on 12/10/2013 1:28:10 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

But I’m not wrong. You got drunk. Sorry that bothers you, but you did. Period.


71 posted on 12/10/2013 1:34:42 PM PST by discostu (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Next, can we tackle the weighty issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


72 posted on 12/10/2013 1:42:29 PM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
You're stating something like the moral equivalent of a reverse Zeno's paradox: if the hare never goes past the starting point, it will never get to the end.

If you want to argue that the risk of drunkenness is always there, and it is always a sin to take a risk for no benefit, therefore drinking is always a sin, I guess you can make that argument.

73 posted on 12/10/2013 1:49:18 PM PST by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

In a word: “no”.

If only speaking of the sin of drunkenness, I suppose the answer could be “yes”, again in that narrow window of consideration. But there is no fooling God.

While it may be true such a person wouldn’t be guilty of the sin of drunkenness, such a person would be guilty of a sin of gluttony.

It is impossible to use sin to become righteous.


74 posted on 12/10/2013 1:53:22 PM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

My Grandmother always warned me about aguing with fools....wished I’d have listened.


75 posted on 12/10/2013 2:10:19 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

And now you’ve got to go to personal attack. Sad sad sad.

Take it up with merriam webster. Meanwhile you were drunk, it’s only a big deal because that upsets you. So take that up with your shrink. I’m out, enjoy pretending you don’t get drunk.


76 posted on 12/10/2013 2:19:56 PM PST by discostu (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

77 posted on 12/10/2013 2:22:24 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

You are sober until you are drunk...Just drink a six pack...If a six pack gets you drunk, drink it every day...Eventually you may be able to tolerate it without being drunk...

Thing is, if you’re not sober, you’re drunk...You can’t be just a little bit sober or a little bit drunk...


78 posted on 12/10/2013 2:23:49 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Just use bigger glasses. I ‘only’ had one beer, in a 64 oz growler.


79 posted on 12/10/2013 2:31:58 PM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

See Luke 10:8: “Eat what they set before you.”


80 posted on 12/10/2013 3:07:46 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson