Hacker News Reader

Comment by hollerith | Hacker News Reader

Driving cars and riding in cars tend to have large benefits whereas alcohol does not.

Alcohol can have large benefits for helping people to bond and socialize. The article itself pointed this out. Of course people can socialize without alcohol. But I think it's plausible to argue that alcohol in moderation can improve and deepen the experience.

OK good point, but MDMA is much better for that according to many comment here on HN over the years.

Also if I go drinking with someone I don't know well, the risk of their becoming violent is quite high.

Many drugs promote socialization. To the point that you have to question the distinction between drugs and food/drink. Take sugar. It's often the focus of social gatherings. But the bad effects of sugar arguably outweigh those of alcohol, given the epidemics of diabetes and obesity.

Alcohol happens to have 10,000 years of cultural tradition behind it. Plus, it pairs well with food.

>Also if I go drinking with someone I don't know well, the risk of their becoming violent is quite high

In what kind of society or social circles is this true? Here it's common to socialize and meet strangers over a drink or two, and the risks of their becoming violent is near zero.

> MDMA is much better for that according to many comment here on HN over the years.

Maybe but it's also much harder to obtain due to being illegal.

> the risk of their becoming violent is quite high.

Jesus who are you going drinking with??? That's not normal.

>On average, roughly 40% of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offenses were under the influence of alcohol during the time of their crime.

https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/

Correlation does not imply causation.

You need to do a basic statistics course.

> On average, roughly 100% of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offences have two arms.

Arghhh! Quick, cut one of everyone's arms off!

Pick a random person at a random moment in time. What is the probability that the person is under the influence of alcohol? No more than 3% is my guess, but some of my debate opponents might disagree, so let's appease them and say 6%. Keeping on randomly choosing (person, time) pairs, taking note of whether the person you pick is engaging in any violence. Ignore any violence done by anyone other then the person you randomly picked. 40% of the violence you note occurs during the 6% of the time the person you picked is under the influence of alcohol.

Like someone here writes, correlation does not imply causation, but correlation is evidence of causation, and that is a strong correlation. Specifically, if the person you picked is under the influence, he or she is 10.4 times more likely to be engaging in an act of violence than if he or she is not.

People can bond and socialize over other things, including tea and coffee. We see this in cultures that do not use alcohol.

Maybe it's not your cup of tea/wine, but I think most of the population would strongly disagree with you there!

Source?

Do you want a source for my assertion that there are benefits to getting from where you are to where you want to be using cars?

"Randomized placebo-controlled study of the benefits of personal mobility", Stravro and Chunk, 1999.

>Do you want a source for my assertion that there are benefits to getting from where you are to where you want to be using cars?

Have those made-up sources included externalities, from air and noise pollution, to city planning, commutes, lifestyle changes - include pressure and stress added to the individual by the extra speed of going places?

Have they asked those pesky "walk and/or take the public transport" Europeans living in suitable cities, if they prefer their way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com