Drunken Pirate MySpace pic costs student her degree

[Jeffcat]

Fit your scenario where drinking MUST lead to trouble, even a hindrance at work, so surely that was and/or will be the case with her.

i never said that she "MUST" lead to trouble. i stated she has shown to be a liability. i think this is where you are confused.

No it's not. You continue to assume (aka "make up that") she will be hungover at work (at some point) b/c she drinks, nevermind that its perfectly avoidable, even for heavy drinkers.

i stated that she COULD.......aka liability.

So much for reality. How is that a valid question? How does one night of drinking equate to multiple felonies? Do you not see how you're sculpting reality to fit your personal crusade against alcohol?

its realistic by a legal means of expressing the same idea. if both are expressed and interpreted what difference are you trying to make? while an extreme example, if the board administrator goes to a restaurant and sees her drunk in a pirate outfit even without felonies he/she has every right to use that as an inference over other applicants.

 

[Bob.Barker]

i stated that she COULD.......aka liability.

Man I was considering going for a walk, but I'll just stay at home with momma, the potential for death and destruction is just too much. Plus when I start grooving to Sanjaya on my ipod, I lose track of time and distance. If I don't put 'stop walking' mp3 notices on my playlist, I might walk forever, causing permanent damage to my body.

Speaking of permanent damage, I should head to bed. I don't want to be tired in the workplace and end up killing somebody.

 

[Jeffcat]

Man I was considering going for a walk, but I'll just stay at home with momma, the potential for death and destruction is just too much. Plus when I start grooving to Sanjaya on my ipod, I lose track of time and distance. If I don't put 'stop walking' mp3 notices on my playlist, I might walk forever, causing permanent damage to my body.

Speaking of permanent damage, I should head to bed. I don't want to be tired in the workplace and end up killing somebody.

2 words......slippery slope

 

[methomps]

hmmm well i could make a case for that but i was more going towards the direction of her being drunk and/or hungover in the workplace which is with kids. i never said she ultimately would but to any employer it puts them on the spot as a liability. like i said earlier if an employer saw that picture and/or knew the tendencies of drinking then i highly doubt she would be employed by a school.

Great, sounds like a decision for the school to make in deciding whether or not to hire her, not for her college to make in deciding to deny her degree after she met all the requirements for graduation.

for the sake of making things really hysterical i am not going to debate over wine in religious ceremonies. however red wine is strongly the best support you can substantiate for "alcohol" because of its VERY minor health benefits. abuse of alcohol is wrong and those who drink responsibly then congratulations but if you are asking me the choice between eliminating deaths, health problems, drinking crimes by eliminating alcohol as opposed to supporting it merely as somebody non-necessary drink of enjoyment then i think the decision is fairly obvious with little to no benefits coming from consumption of alcohol. with the history you have given you should be quite clearly aware of this already. the weights and benefits are severely weighed down in opposition to alcohol.

Maybe we should amend the Constitution.

fit what scenario. my scenario is reality. suppose your friend was also drunk and slammed with multiple DUIs and whatever else. do you think that makes him a better prospect for a teaching job over a sober person given they have the same teaching capacity? he is a liability. whether or not you think he could show up innebriated or even if he never even does show up that way is unknown to an employer so do you believe they will take the person with a liability or the one that as far as they know is not one?

2 words......slippery slope

Sorry, Jeff, but you keep invoking "slippery slope," and yet you are most guilty of relying on it.

god damn i love counter strike too. CS doesn't have the possibility to kill somebody(well in real life at least) or have harmful effects such as alcohol even though failing an exam is a bitch it can't be mentioned in the same breath as somebody suffering from the negative side of alcohol. your example is a good one though. you being the responsible one stopped playing(stopped drinking) in order to achieve something. others continued to play(drink) and may have suffered negative consequences. is it CS's fault?........in this scenario yes and no. yes in the perspective that if eliminate CS studying MAY be accomplished depending upon that person's desire to study. you cannot make the same statement for alcohol. if you eliminate alcohol you won't MAYBE have a problem unless it is non-alcohol related of course. you could also say no in the respect that CS is a game that can simply be turned on/off. you can't do the same thing with alcohol with being in an instant drunk/sober. whichever stance you choose yes or no there is still a valid reason why alcohol is negative.

"Sorry, teachers shouldn't be allowed to play CS. If they play CS, they are a liability to play too much and be poorly prepared for class. Worse, they'll encourage kids to be lazy slackers who play computer games instead of studying or playing outside (exercise). if you are asking me the choice between eliminating eye strain, obesity, kids acting out CS fantasies in real life by eliminating CS as opposed to supporting it merely as somebody non-necessary game of enjoyment then i think the decision is fairly obvious with little to no benefits coming from playing CS."

 

[Golferdow01]

Jeff is leaving out one critical benefit to alcohol; destressing and relaxation. Stress and overanxiety is one of the biggest killers around (I'm watching it eat away at someone in my family). Although Jeff will argue there are other methods to destress, few are as easily accessible and none have the same effect. When I've had a long day at work, I enjoy one (1) beverage and can relax for the evening.

Although it can easily be proven when alcohol kills, it is not so easily proven when alcohol saves lives (stress elimination over years). I argue alcohol moderation saves lives and is healthier than abstinence.

 

[Thump]

by idiot you mean reading the obituaries? by idiot you mean seeing people innebriated in the workplace? by idiot you mean observing those of whom must go through the process of having a hepatectomy or liver transplant?

......but thats all fine because your non-peerly reviewed study saves you by claiming its such a B6 contributer to the body yet as soon as everybody goes out and drinks thats immediately the last thing on their mind.

I've never seen someone inebriated at my workplace.

 

[Thump]

I guess this is a bad time to tell Jeffcat that I once got interviewed after the OSU vs. San Jose State game by Channel 4 and was drunker than a skunk.

 

[buckeyefool]

I've never seen someone inebriated at my workplace.

But don't you understand Thump...because they might have a beer or two at an ohio state game on Saturday, there is a chance that they will come to work drunk. it's all liability

 

[OH10]

I've never seen someone inebriated at my workplace.

That's because they insist on giving children milk at lunch instead of a nice cold Long Island Iced Tea.

 

[Gatorubet]

Well, standing back and looking at the big picture....and using Jeff logic.....it seems llike the decision to deny her a teaching certificate was a good one.

You see, she was known to be at a TV show being interviewed. That implies that she has an automobile to drive to the interview, or at minimum a familiarity with automobiles. This means that the potential of her driving eratically, carelessly - or even recklessly - is far greater than that of strictly bipedal teachers.

And what we don't know yet are the terms of her contract with the institution. Is there a drunken pirate or beefy-fingered trani clause?

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

none are "showing" that this is a reality besides heart disease which is the case of athersclerosis. they have reason to believe but none of the studies have shown this to be medically correct or peerly reviewed extensively as of yet. and moderate is the equivalent to half a beer or a glass of wine which nobody obviously obeys "moderation". not to mention that nobody drink alcohol for this reason so it is essentially irrelevant. medications still outperform any effect(if any) alcohol has as a treatment for any of those pathologic conditions. also in all fairness you could make a medical claim for really about anything. i could very easily sit here and claim that people that enjoy killing as a release of anxiety is a medically proven way of lowering blood pressure rates and relieving hypertension but that doesn't make it any better because it is worthless to mention. no different from alcohol causing crimes, fights, poisoning, drunk driving, etc.

Great points. At this time, I would like to note that ice cream has no significant health benefits and that the consumption of it is merely hedonistic.




Wow. This is astonishing.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

i never once made that claim now did i? if you think i did then go ahead and go back and quote me where i did. oh people can drink in moderation such as in restaurants in your example but do you think they do it for B6 intake?.......spare me.

nobody obviously obeys "moderation". not to mention that nobody drink alcohol for this reason so it is essentially irrelevant.

however when a dumbass kills somebody while driving impaired it is pretty clear that if alcohol was never there the chances of him causing an accident are grossly decreased.

Likewise, if the car was never there, the chances of him causing an accident are grossly decreased.

Jeff: The more I read this thread, the more apparent is becomes that you and/or your family have been subjected to one or more terrible alchohol related tragedies and for that you have my condolences. There is no doubt that alcoholism and driving while under the influence are incredibly distructive forces in our society. However, you need to understand that it's not the drink that does the deed, it's the human. The actions of the minority of those who consume alcohol cannot cast a bad light on the vast majority of responsible drinkers. You are fooling yourself if you think there are not millions of responsible drinkers. I'm sorry if the people in your life do not fit this catagory, but you need to know that it is the rule, rather than the exception, to enjoy alcohol in moderation and responsibly.

Good luck.

 

[Dryden]

Hallelujah, my eyes have been opened!

Goodbye, everybody. I will be leaving BP forever. You see, there are no practical health benefits to my being here, and using BP is probably a liability to my employer, so I guess it's time to go.

You know, come to think of it, BP really doesn't benefit anybody, so it's probably best we just shut this fucker down, huh?

 

[Mike80]

I guess this is a bad time to tell Jeffcat that I once got interviewed after the OSU vs. San Jose State game by Channel 4 and was drunker than a skunk.

shame shame

 

[BB73]

Well, standing back and looking at the big picture....and using Jeff logic.....it seems llike the decision to deny her a teaching certificate was a good one.

You see, she was known to be at a TV show being interviewed. That implies that she has an automobile to drive to the interview, or at minimum a familiarity with automobiles. This means that the potential of her driving eratically, carelessly - or even recklessly - is far greater than that of strictly bipedal teachers.

While she is doing this probable driving, either the drive to work or the return must be slightly uphill, and there is a probability that one day it will be raining; so at some point she will undoubtedly be proceeding down a "slippery slope". :tongue2: