A Drink In Seattle Vs. A Drink In Salt Lake City

[Calm]

They DON"T achieve their intended purpose

CFR

add-on: I see you have some others, not surprisingly the way you are throwing around opinions as facts, just add mine to the count, than you.

And btw, I am looking for statistics that demonstrate your claim, not just someone who shares your opinion.

Edited May 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Johnnie Cake]

Oh Brother...I did a quick cut and paist from Wiki to explain to you what a Zions Curtin is...do your own damn CFR

Youre all so slow so ill type slowly....That quote that y'all. keep asking me to CFR as I've stated above is a cut and paste from Wikipedia , as explained Earlier Eraye wanted to Know What a zion curtain was....ok caught up? So I googled Zion curtain and up popped Wikipedia So I cut the definition and pasted it here as a jesture of kindness on my part for ERayE Only to get a barrage of CFR requests...whew...

It's wekipedias claim. CFR them.

You are out of the thread.

[Calm]

My CFR is not about the meaning of a Zion Curtain but your claim that they don't achieve their intended purpose.

[Programmer]

I'm completely happy with the alcohol restrictions we have. Where I live there is no alcohol sold in my city, nor in the next city either.

I LOVE going to the grocery story and not seeing alcohol anywhere in the premises. It certainly makes it safer to bring my kids to the store with me.

As for me I and my wife have already been teaching my children that alcohol is yucky and disgusting (Not to mention stinky).

Edited May 23, 2013 by Programmer

[stemelbow]

The whole point I was making is that State control i.e. "Zion Curtin’s" etc. has ZERO impact on reducing alcohol related deaths on our highways. It’s really just a ratio of drinkers to population.

I get your point. I actually think you're about to be on to something here. But in going where you want to go you've managed to convince me it's probably best we have more restrictions as per drinking. If other states had less people drinking they too could have less deaths related to alcohol. These backwards stupid laws don't seem to be hurting.

Now, if we throw suicide rates in the mix you may again have a point to argue from (meanings perhaps suicide rates increase with less drinking? hard to really demonstrate that I"m sure but it's something), but I"m not trying to help you here.

[stemelbow]

It certainly makes it safer to bring my kids to the store with me.

You mean to say my kids are in danger when I bring them to the store with me? (stores where I live sale alcohol).

[thesometimesaint]

You mean to say my kids are in danger when I bring them to the store with me? (stores where I live sale alcohol).

When my kids were little the most dangerous part of the grocery store wasn't the liquor area. It was the candy isle.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've asked you to back up your claim...you've admitted that you can't...

What claim and what admission?

Edited to add: Never mind. I see you're out of the thread.

responsible people are responsible...those who are not...arn't... Drinking aside

Probably every drunk who ever caused a death on the highway started out regarding himself as a "responsible drinker."

So we need to have controls in place.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott...we could make all kinds of correlations…more drinkers DO = more irresponsible driver...as I've "Whittingly" pointed out...I’ve never claimed otherwise…just as more drivers DO = more accidents…by your logic we should limit the number of drivers on the road…irrespective of how responsible they are…

Let’s ban all cars from our highways and there will never again be a highway fatality. problem solved per Scott's logic

Streets, highways, motor vehicles and driving are essential to a functioning society.

Consumption of alcoholic beverages is not. It is a pleasure that some people pursue. So we grant them that privilege, but we endeavor to put controls in place to hinder or prevent them from posing a danger to the safety and welfare of the public (just as we enact traffic laws and require driver's licenses).

However imperfectly the Utah State Legislature or the state agencies may have accomplished that up to now, it does not negate the need in concept for controls to be put in place. You yourself have given apparent evidence of that by saying there are a disproportionate number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the state despite the presence and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ. Yet you are complaining about the regulations. I regret that, before you were thrown off the thread, you failed to definitively answer my question about whether you are seeking to have the regulations relaxed.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Youre all so slow so ill type slowly....That quote that y'all. keep asking me to CFR as I've stated above is a cut and paste from Wikipedia , as explained Earlier Eraye wanted to Know What a zion curtain was....ok caught up? So I googled Zion curtain and up popped Wikipedia So I cut the definition and pasted it here as a jesture of kindness on my part for ERayE Only to get a barrage of CFR requests...whew...

It's wekipedias claim. CFR them.

You are out of the thread.

Judging from the errors in this post, and the attitude, it looks like he found some cold ones after all

Edited May 23, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

My CFR is not about the meaning of a Zion Curtain but your claim that they don't achieve their intended purpose.

If the intended purpose is, as was stated in one of the cited links, to keep the mixing of alcohol out of view of minors, then obviously they do achieve their intended purpose. It's self-evident.

Is the intended purpose to cut alcohol-related traffic fatalities? Johnnie Cake seems to make that assumption, but I'm not persuaded his assumption is supportable.

If the intended purpose is to hinder the proliferation of a culture of liquor-consumption, I suppose it remains to be seen whether it is succeeding. Off hand, I don't know how one would quantify that.

But it is a reasonable assumption. The power of suggestion has been recognized pretty much as axiomatic for a long time. The advertising industry spends billions of dollars annually based on the fundamental premise that if they can get a product out in view of the public, it will have greater appeal. I can see where a young person might view the mixing of drinks behind the bar as glamorous and attractive.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

If the intended purpose is, as was stated in one of the cited links, to keep the mixing of alcohol out of view of minors, then obviously they do achieve their intended purpose. It's self-evident.

Is the intended purpose to cut alcohol-related traffic fatalities? Johnnie Cake seems to make that assumption, but I'm not persuaded his assumption is supportable.

If the intended purpose is to hinder the proliferation of a culture of liquor-consumption, I suppose it remains to be seen whether it is succeeding. Off hand, I don't know how one would quantify that.

But it is a reasonable assumption. The power of suggestion has been recognized pretty much as axiomatic for a long time. The advertising industry spends billions of dollars annually based on the fundamental premise that if they can get a product out in view of the public, it will have greater appeal. I can see where a young person might view the mixing of drinks behind the bar as glamorous and attractive.

I think what many Utahns (both LDS and not) reject is the hypocrisy they see in our legislatures. They have a talent of being able to rail on the government nanny state while at the same time force restaurants to pay thousands of dollars to erect a useless Zion Curtain. If you are offended by or are worried that you or your children viewing a drink being mixed will negate everything you've learned about alcohol through the church and schools, then simply choose another restaurant...the free market at it's finest.

I have not been able to find any evidence that it has caused a decrease in drunk driving, but what it (and some of the other more restrictive liquor laws) has done is reduce economic activity as many restaurants have refused or have been hesitant to expand in Utah.

[thesometimesaint]

Utah for all its many advantages and disadvantages is well within the middle range when it comes to its liquor laws. New Mexico is one of a few that has drive-up windows at liquor stores. Several states are legally dry.

[Five Solas]

As for me I and my wife have already been teaching my children that alcohol is yucky and disgusting (Not to mention stinky).

My LDS sister and brother-in-law tried the same thing. They laid it on so thick my sister once admonished me not to be seen with an alcoholic beverage in front of her children, because she feared they'd lose respect for me. I'm not kidding.

But as time has gone on, it's had the opposite effect. Their kids see responsible adults (their uncle and aunt) raising children (their cousins) & enjoying a beer or glass of wine with dinner, suddenly all that indoctrination gets called into question. Children don't stay children forever. In your shoes, I'd teach them truths that will stand the test of time. There may be good reason for some people to abstain from beverages containing alcohol, but taste isn't one of them (Keystone Light notwithstanding).

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

My LDS sister and brother-in-law tried the same thing. They laid it on so thick my sister once admonished me not to be seen with an alcoholic beverage in front of her children, because she feared they'd lose respect for me. I'm not kidding.

But as time has gone on, it's had the opposite effect. Their kids see responsible adults (their uncle and aunt) raising children (their cousins) & enjoying a beer or glass of wine with dinner, suddenly all that indoctrination gets called into question. Children don't stay children forever. In your shoes, I'd teach them truths that will stand the test of time. There may be good reason for some people to abstain from beverages containing alcohol, but taste isn't one of them (Keystone Light notwithstanding).

--Erik

OK. So consumption of alcohol isn't something you're particularly concerned about shielding your children from. The problem is that there are plenty of purveyors and consumers of things I believe you would want to shield your children from who use that exact same argument. What then? For example, "Oh, sure, he watches the odd porn flick every now and again, but otherwise he's a good guy, so I'm not worried if my children spend a lot of time in his company. And if I try to keep my kids away from pornography (and to keep pornography away from my kids), it's just going to make them more curious about it, more rebellious later on, et cetera." Same result? Edited May 24, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Utah for all its many advantages and disadvantages is well within the middle range when it comes to its liquor laws. New Mexico is one of a few that has drive-up windows at liquor stores. Several states are legally dry.

Entire states? Vast stretches, yes; many counties therein, yes; but entire states? CFR.

[mfbukowski]

Entire states? Vast stretches, yes; many counties therein, yes; but entire states? CFR.

Well, it could be worse. At least your folks don't live in a dry county, of which there are many. All over the country, even in the uberr-liberal Norheast. BTW, on the accompanying map, red means completely dry-no booze sold at all in the county, yellow means significant restrictions. Utah is blue-you may have to go to a state store, but at least you can get what you want. Sorry if we don't measure up to the fleshpots of Seattle.

Well Kentucky and Arkansas are getting close, but no cigar on an entire state.

Edited May 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

OK. So consumption of alcohol isn't something you're particularly concerned about shielding your children from. The problem is that there are plenty of purveyors and consumers of things I believe you would want to shield your children from who use that exact same argument. What then? For example, "Oh, sure, he watches the odd porn flick every now and again, but otherwise he's a good guy, so I'm not worried if my children spend a lot of time in his company. And if I try to keep my kids away from pornography (and to keep pornography away from my kids), it's just going to make them more curious about it, more rebellious later on, et cetera." Same result?

Hey Kenngo1969--

Of course there are things I shield my children from. But the real question here is why do LDS conflate having a drink with prostitution (Hamba Tuhan, post #45) and pornography (as you just did)? Our Lord turned water into wine (John 2), but he forbade lust (Matthew 5). Pretty awkward/un-Biblical to lump such things together, don't you think?

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

I can't speak for Hamba Tuhan, and I didn't conflate having a drink with pornography. I merely used the latter as an example because I think we can agree that whether you think shielding your children from others' consumption of alcohol is necessary or not, shielding them from others' consumption of pornography certainly is necessary. Christ wasn't under covenant to obey the Word of Wisdom because Section 89 in the Doctrine and Covenants hadn't been revealed yet. Conversely, I am under covenant to obey it, because I have made both baptismal and temple covenants to do so. If the Holy Bible, which I revere, is sufficient for you, more power to you. Given your background, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that we believe in continuing revelation, modern prophets, and an open canon.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Five Solas]

I can't speak for Hamba Tuhan, and I didn't conflate having a drink with pornography. I merely used the latter as an example because I think we can agree that whether you think shielding your children from others' consumption of alcohol is necessary or not, shielding them from others' consumption of pornography certainly is necessary. Christ wasn't under covenant to obey the Word of Wisdom because Section 89 in the Doctrine and Covenants hadn't been revealed yet.

...

Okay, if you say so. I did notice a complete lack of analogy/metaphors to gardening & vintage auto restoration, but porn & prostitution--we certainly managed to check those boxes on the thread! All coincidence, no doubt...

;0

As to your last part, bodes ill for an omniscient God, don't you think?

--Erik

[thesometimesaint]

As to your last part, bodes ill for an omniscient God, don't you think?

--Erik

?

[Five Solas]

?

If you accept the premise that Jesus is God and that He aided & abetted alcoholic beverage consumption at a party (a wedding feast to be exact, John 2) and then you assert that He gets a free pass because D&C 89 "hadn't been revealed" yet...

It's problematic, is it not?

--Erik

[ERayR]

If you accept the premise that Jesus is God and that He aided & abetted alcoholic beverage consumption at a party (a wedding feast to be exact, John 2) and then you assert that He gets a free pass because D&C 89 "hadn't been revealed" yet...

It's problematic, is it not?

--Erik

Not to me. I don't see your logic or lack thereof.

[Yirgacheffe]

Hey Kenngo1969--

Of course there are things I shield my children from. But the real question here is why do LDS conflate having a drink with prostitution (Hamba Tuhan, post #45) and pornography (as you just did)? Our Lord turned water into wine (John 2), but he forbade lust (Matthew 5). Pretty awkward/un-Biblical to lump such things together, don't you think?

--Erik

He turned water into wine after they had drunk all the wine on hand, and I can't see any reason to think that the children of the families were not present at the wedding celebration.

[Calm]

He turned water into wine after they had drunk all the wine on hand, and I can't see any reason to think that the children of the families were not present at the wedding celebration.

You are assuming that LDS believe that the drinking of alcohol itself is a sin that we wish to protect our children from, it is not. It is a covenant that we undertake to live and try to instill the same desire in our children at this time. Nor do we believe it is a covenant that will be eternally undertaken, but rather temporary like circumcision was. Edited May 27, 2013 by calmoriah