Why do people drink alcohol?

Holy cow what a shit storm

Chubz.Holy cow what a shit storm

The football helmet issue is more interesting than the original issue

milk_manThe football helmet issue is more interesting than the original issue

TL:DR So did what did we decide? Wear a helmet or no when drinking?

MinggI understand that dude. The posts before that seemed like they were contracting but it wasn't. You really need to chill.

I am very chill I explained it to you, then asked what about that you didn't get. How is that not chill?

sometimes it helps with motivation and makes it easier to go on an adventure. also makes sleeping on grass more comfortable and can help you focus during work? (especially if you work in politics or if you're a pilot or a liftie)

I only drink when I'm super stressed out about something, two weekends ago I drank 3/4 of a bottle of Pinot Grigio, it was okay. Super hung over the next morning which rarely happens to me.

I drink to numb the pain when I don't have access to other means of numbing.

Wheaty214I only drink when I'm super stressed out about something, two weekends ago I drank 3/4 of a bottle of Pinot Grigio, it was okay. Super hung over the next morning which rarely happens to me.

I drink to numb the pain when I don't have access to other means of numbing.

That seems like the most dangerous way to consume alcohol.

Better yet, why do people wonder/care if people drink? Unless your family is plagued with alcoholism or something/about to drive, it really shouldnt be of anyones concern if someone wants to have a beer or drink themselves into a coma.

This whole "worry about other people" mindset we have in society is fucking annoying.

fuck bitches

milk_manThe football helmet issue is more interesting than the original issue

TRUUUUUU

shin-bangTRUUUUUU

February 22, 2013
Dear Cecil:

A rugby player friend of mine says one reason for the serious injuries in American football is pads and helmets. He says players can hit harder because of protective equipment and do so knowing they will suffer less injury than those on the receiving end. Also, he claims that if players went back to one-platoon football, meaning they played both offense and defense, the size of the players on offense and defense would be smaller and more equal and there would be less chance of a big, fast linebacker laying flat a receiver or quarterback. Any truth to either of these lines of thought, or is it just rugby snobbery?

— Sam Johnson

Cecil replies:

It’s partly rugby snobbery, but never mind. Is it true? Probably yes.

The concept here is called risk homeostasis or risk compensation. It holds that everyone engaged in a dangerous activity has a personal risk-vs.-reward level they’ll stick to no matter what. In other words, if you force someone playing a contact sport to wear protective equipment, they’ll take bigger risks to bring the overall danger back to the level they’re comfortable with.

Does that sound self-destructive? If only. When risky behavior increases, others may bear the brunt. A watershed 1975 study of automobile safety measures theorized that motorists increased their driving “intensity” if they felt safer behind the wheel, leading to fewer driver and passenger deaths but more dead pedestrians.

Applying this theory to football, one might suppose that as players switched from simple leather helmets to today’s elaborate headgear, they’d hit harder, use their heads more, and generally play more recklessly. In fact that seems to have been what happened.

When hard plastic football helmets became popular after World War II, tackling methods shifted, so that by the early 60s players had gone from tackling shoulder first to head first. Possibly as a result, tackling injuries in the years from 1955 through 1964 rose significantly compared to a decade earlier. This eventually led to rule changes, notably a ban on “spearing” (hits delivered via a lowered head), and better standards for helmets.

To be clear, helmets do work — up to a point. Experiments have shown, for example, that a helmet reduces the impact of heading a soccer ball traveling at 35 MPH from 19 g to 8 g. But protecting against obvious dangers often just makes the problems more insidious. While helmets reduce skull fractures and deaths, they also encourage players to endure frequent concussions that over a career add up to brain damage.

Risk compensation isn’t limited to football. Examples from other sports:



A study of little leaguers found kids using soft rather than standard baseballs suffered more injuries, probably due to taking bigger fielding risks and being less afraid of wild pitches.
Researchers found rugby players who wore helmets tackled harder than those without.
The use of quick-release bindings and helmets by skiers and snowboarders may have led to more risk-taking and associated casualties.


Risk compensation may not apply to all sports, though:



Before masks and pierce-resistant jackets, fencing was infamous for blindings, other serious injuries, and death, even when using blunted foils. After protective gear became mandatory, injury and death rates plummeted, and the sport has seen only seven fatalities in international competition since 1937.
Studies have found hockey players wearing only upper-face protection get injured more than those wearing full face masks, and are also more likely to engage in illegal behavior.
Helmet-wearing bicyclists not only suffer fewer serious injuries but also use hand signals more and obey the rules of the road.


On closer examination, though, the last two cases may not be exceptions after all. Bike helmets are generally optional equipment (for adults at least), and anyone who wears protective headgear without being compelled to is by definition a cautious sort. Likewise, you have to wonder if differences among hockey players can be attributed to more aggressive types who, given the choice, pick headgear that offers less protection.

A concept related to risk compensation is moral hazard, where people do dangerous things because they won’t suffer the consequences. One much-studied question is why American League batters have gotten hit by pitches 15 percent more often than their National League counterparts since imposition of the designated hitter rule. For many, the explanation is obvious: since AL pitchers don’t bat, a beanball thrower doesn’t risk retaliation. But some researchers say an equally important factor is that DHs are much better hitters than the pitchers they replace and thus likelier targets for brushbacks and beanings.

Finally, would going back to one-platoon football make the game safer? There’s virtually no data. On the one hand it seems obvious that if the same squad had to play both ways, no team could afford 300-pound linemen. Then again, linebacker Lawrence Taylor, whose brutal quarterback sacks famously gave rise to the 300-pound blind-side offensive tackle, was a relative lightweight at 240 pounds. So I’m not convinced a no-sub rule would give us a kinder, gentler game.

Update From "Boxing Group Bans Headgear in Bid to Reduce Concussions," Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2013: A major sports federation has mandated banning headgear in an effort to reduce concussions and head trauma, a decision that is thought to be a first in the sports world. Starting June 1, amateur, elite boxers who compete internationally no longer will be allowed to use headgear in competition, according to rules released this week by the International Boxing Association ... Removing the use of helmets or headgear has been discussed as a counterintuitive way to decrease brain injuries, with the idea being that athletes wouldn't use their heads as weapons or hit as hard if they didn't feel protected. In boxing, there also is the belief that headgear makes it harder to see to the side to avoid blows, and makes the head a bigger target.

— Cecil Adams

nocturnalFebruary 22, 2013
Dear Cecil:

A rugby player friend of mine says one reason for the serious injuries in American football is pads and helmets. He says players can hit harder because of protective equipment and do so knowing they will suffer less injury than those on the receiving end. Also, he claims that if players went back to one-platoon football, meaning they played both offense and defense, the size of the players on offense and defense would be smaller and more equal and there would be less chance of a big, fast linebacker laying flat a receiver or quarterback. Any truth to either of these lines of thought, or is it just rugby snobbery?

— Sam Johnson

Cecil replies:

It’s partly rugby snobbery, but never mind. Is it true? Probably yes.

The concept here is called risk homeostasis or risk compensation. It holds that everyone engaged in a dangerous activity has a personal risk-vs.-reward level they’ll stick to no matter what. In other words, if you force someone playing a contact sport to wear protective equipment, they’ll take bigger risks to bring the overall danger back to the level they’re comfortable with.

Does that sound self-destructive? If only. When risky behavior increases, others may bear the brunt. A watershed 1975 study of automobile safety measures theorized that motorists increased their driving “intensity” if they felt safer behind the wheel, leading to fewer driver and passenger deaths but more dead pedestrians.

Applying this theory to football, one might suppose that as players switched from simple leather helmets to today’s elaborate headgear, they’d hit harder, use their heads more, and generally play more recklessly. In fact that seems to have been what happened.

When hard plastic football helmets became popular after World War II, tackling methods shifted, so that by the early 60s players had gone from tackling shoulder first to head first. Possibly as a result, tackling injuries in the years from 1955 through 1964 rose significantly compared to a decade earlier. This eventually led to rule changes, notably a ban on “spearing” (hits delivered via a lowered head), and better standards for helmets.

To be clear, helmets do work — up to a point. Experiments have shown, for example, that a helmet reduces the impact of heading a soccer ball traveling at 35 MPH from 19 g to 8 g. But protecting against obvious dangers often just makes the problems more insidious. While helmets reduce skull fractures and deaths, they also encourage players to endure frequent concussions that over a career add up to brain damage.

Risk compensation isn’t limited to football. Examples from other sports:



A study of little leaguers found kids using soft rather than standard baseballs suffered more injuries, probably due to taking bigger fielding risks and being less afraid of wild pitches.
Researchers found rugby players who wore helmets tackled harder than those without.
The use of quick-release bindings and helmets by skiers and snowboarders may have led to more risk-taking and associated casualties.


Risk compensation may not apply to all sports, though:



Before masks and pierce-resistant jackets, fencing was infamous for blindings, other serious injuries, and death, even when using blunted foils. After protective gear became mandatory, injury and death rates plummeted, and the sport has seen only seven fatalities in international competition since 1937.
Studies have found hockey players wearing only upper-face protection get injured more than those wearing full face masks, and are also more likely to engage in illegal behavior.
Helmet-wearing bicyclists not only suffer fewer serious injuries but also use hand signals more and obey the rules of the road.


On closer examination, though, the last two cases may not be exceptions after all. Bike helmets are generally optional equipment (for adults at least), and anyone who wears protective headgear without being compelled to is by definition a cautious sort. Likewise, you have to wonder if differences among hockey players can be attributed to more aggressive types who, given the choice, pick headgear that offers less protection.

A concept related to risk compensation is moral hazard, where people do dangerous things because they won’t suffer the consequences. One much-studied question is why American League batters have gotten hit by pitches 15 percent more often than their National League counterparts since imposition of the designated hitter rule. For many, the explanation is obvious: since AL pitchers don’t bat, a beanball thrower doesn’t risk retaliation. But some researchers say an equally important factor is that DHs are much better hitters than the pitchers they replace and thus likelier targets for brushbacks and beanings.

Finally, would going back to one-platoon football make the game safer? There’s virtually no data. On the one hand it seems obvious that if the same squad had to play both ways, no team could afford 300-pound linemen. Then again, linebacker Lawrence Taylor, whose brutal quarterback sacks famously gave rise to the 300-pound blind-side offensive tackle, was a relative lightweight at 240 pounds. So I’m not convinced a no-sub rule would give us a kinder, gentler game.

Update From "Boxing Group Bans Headgear in Bid to Reduce Concussions," Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2013: A major sports federation has mandated banning headgear in an effort to reduce concussions and head trauma, a decision that is thought to be a first in the sports world. Starting June 1, amateur, elite boxers who compete internationally no longer will be allowed to use headgear in competition, according to rules released this week by the International Boxing Association ... Removing the use of helmets or headgear has been discussed as a counterintuitive way to decrease brain injuries, with the idea being that athletes wouldn't use their heads as weapons or hit as hard if they didn't feel protected. In boxing, there also is the belief that headgear makes it harder to see to the side to avoid blows, and makes the head a bigger target.

— Cecil Adams

Yea who cares. I read the first paragraph and got bored lol

shin-bangand good thing at least one person knows something


"How does alcohol harm the kidneys?

Your kidneys filter harmful substances from your blood. One of these substances is alcohol. Alcohol can cause changes in the function of the kidneys and make them less able to filter your blood. In addition to filtering blood, your kidneys do many other important jobs. One of these jobs is keeping the right amount of water in your body. Alcohol affects the ability of your kidneys to do this. When alcohol dehydrates (dries out) the body, the drying effect can affect the normal function of cells and organs, including the kidneys."

got this from the national kidney foundation https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/alcohol



and yes helmets do prevent concussions. have you played football before? or have you even played a highschool sport???? imagine if the football players were flying around bashing heads without helmets on? youre saying thats better than with no helmet? come on man

Kind of like drinking in moderation prevents kidney and liver damage. It isn't the people who drink occasionally or even the weekend party animals who develop organ damage, it's the chronic, daily use alcoholics.

I am not saying you are wrong because, yes, alcohol does have those effects, but there are other more common things that may be equally damaging. Look at caffeine, which also has harmful effects to the kidneys because of its acidic and diuretic properties. Most people who have a few cups of coffee throughout the day and a 24oz coke for lunch probably don't realize the effects they may be having on their body.

But anyway, people drink for their own reasons. I like to have a good beer from time to time simply because it tastes good

shotvetKind of like drinking in moderation prevents kidney and liver damage. It isn't the people who drink occasionally or even the weekend party animals who develop organ damage, it's the chronic, daily use alcoholics.

I am not saying you are wrong because, yes, alcohol does have those effects, but there are other more common things that may be equally damaging. Look at caffeine, which also has harmful effects to the kidneys because of its acidic and diuretic properties. Most people who have a few cups of coffee throughout the day and a 24oz coke for lunch probably don't realize the effects they may be having on their body.

But anyway, people drink for their own reasons. I like to have a good beer from time to time simply because it tastes good

Swag. Thanks for being sociable and making a logical response.

shin-bangSwag. Thanks for being sociable and making a logical response.

i got you fam

DeebieSkeebiesBetter yet, why do people wonder/care if people drink? Unless your family is plagued with alcoholism or something/about to drive, it really shouldnt be of anyones concern if someone wants to have a beer or drink themselves into a coma.

This whole "worry about other people" mindset we have in society is fucking annoying.

Why do people wonder? Really? What even is curiosity .

You're right, why do we care about anything. Discussions shouldn't exist

dodgeWhy do people wonder? Really? What even is curiosity .

You're right, why do we care about anything. Discussions shouldn't exist

well when its self destructive behavior/drinking, you just want to get drunk or high or whatever, and its completely victimless, than yes there really shouldnt be a discussion at all.

shin-bangYea who cares. I read the first paragraph and got bored lol

it's actually a pretty interesting read and applies well to our sport (the old "if you wear a helmet you'll take greater risks to get the rush" argument).

As for drinking, I find it to be a social activity. I wouldn't say that it's a product of peer pressure as much as a way for everyone to kick back and forget about their every day problems. I'm not a huge fan of the whole "drinking to get laid" thing b/c it's a bit sketchy as far as the whole consent thing. I remember when I was younger and I thought that I would never drink b/c all the adults in my life told me how bad it was but once you're older you realize that they're trying to keep you from drinking early and once you're out on your own its a very normal thing. I'm not saying it's good to go way over the top but there's nothing wrong with getting shithoused with your buddies from time to time.

shin-bangNot to mention in kills brain cells which can never be restored . I wrote a 6 page report on this topic earlier this year

don't worry reading your posts give the same effect

Turd.Fergusonshin bang im gay and i want you

easy now. dont make me call in the mods

Cuz I likee to get fuked up

-Because Beer is deliscious
-it's a social lubricant, people say shit they normally would t after a drink
-beer is deliscious
-it's relaxing to drink after work or on a hot day
-beer is really delicious

shin-bangeasy now. dont make me get this dildo out of my ass

tmi Hans

Helps you from getting cold, gets you laid, turn up, try new things, ski, function, focus, go to bed, dance, party, waste money, not remember, haha just watch newschoolers snap stories lmao

Get drunk during work at the front desk, makes time go by sooooo fast. And the after work gas is that much better

so you don't feel guilty about plowing a 6/10

you drink for the hoes. and so you can kill it on the dance floor.

.HEROI don't drink, nor do I want to drink. I like being in control of myself, and know what I'm doing. Besides its super fun to mess with drunk people.

I convinced this girl (huge Justin Bieber fan) that Justin Bieber died and she started bawling. LOL

why are you with a girl who still likes justin bieber? are you 12 or stuck in 2011?

shin-bangThey drink it Cus they love killing their kidneys and doing stupid stuff. Also helps take the edge off so it's easier to "get laid" and get an std lol

you've got some really bizarre hang ups about sex for a presumably post-adolescent male. Lighten up.

casualyou've got some really bizarre hang ups about sex for a presumably post-adolescent male. Lighten up.

First off people can do whatever they want.

Second, it's not good for your body therefore I don't do it

3rd, stds aren't anything to mess around with

So if people want drink, go ahead let them. It's their call not the internets

shin-bangSecond, it's not good for your body therefore I don't do it

Basically everything we do isn't good for our body.

Just wait til you go to college, you will drink.

Also drinking in moderation is completely fine. The main downsides to drinking are blacking out and doing something stupid and being hung over after binge drinking. Another factor is the calories hence beer bellys bug drinking liquor with calorie free mixer aka water or soda is much better for you. Either way, no one doesn't drink because 'its bad for you' terrible excuse for just being a pussy. But you're in high school so I'll give you a break.

eheathBasically everything we do isn't good for our body.

Just wait til you go to college, you will drink.

Nah bro I ain't drinking for my entire life. It's just what I believe hahaha

shin-bangNah bro I ain't drinking for my entire life. It's just what I believe hahaha

Bummer dude, i feel bad for you.

eheathBummer dude, i feel bad for you.

Not every one wants a beer belly.

brett_fisherNot every one wants a beer belly.

Then drink vodka with carbonated water. Zero calories.

S.J.WThen drink vodka with carbonated water. Zero calories.

Zero carbs****

*SID*why are you with a girl who still likes justin bieber? are you 12 or stuck in 2011?

I don't know why she likes Justin Bieber, you can ask her if ya want...

shin-bangNah bro I ain't drinking for my entire life. It's just what I believe hahaha

hey shin bang, buddy. Wanna get drunk with me?

shin-bangFirst off people can do whatever they want.

Second, it's not good for your body therefore I don't do it

3rd, stds aren't anything to mess around with

Gotta say, drinking responsibly isn't too bad for you, but most people don't drink responsibly if they drink, they get drunk. And then they become addicted and get drunk more, then that's when the damage starts coming in. So I mean shin-bang isn't wrong, it's not like it helps your body, you just have to be responsible.

Same with the std. You have to be responsible. If you sleep around you have a high risk of getting a std. If you have one partner or know where your partners have been (that's a weird talk tho) then you could be fine. Everything can be dangerous, yall just need to be responsible.

Mingghey shin bang, buddy. Wanna get drunk with me?

YES! WE CAN GET WASTED! CHOCOLATE WASTED!

Mingghey shin bang, buddy. Wanna get drunk with me?

YES! WE CAN GET WASTED! CHOCOLATE WASTED!

Mingghey shin bang, buddy. Wanna get drunk with me?

YES! WE CAN GET WASTED! CHOCOLATE WASTED!

holy computer spaz

shin-bangYES! WE CAN GET WASTED! CHOCOLATE WASTED!

Eh?

shin-bangYES! WE CAN GET WASTED! CHOCOLATE WASTED!

As someone who has had sex with ming multplie times. Ming wants you D

.lenconGotta say, drinking responsibly isn't too bad for you, but most people don't drink responsibly if they drink, they get drunk. And then they become addicted and get drunk more, then that's when the damage starts coming in. So I mean shin-bang isn't wrong, it's not like it helps your body, you just have to be responsible.

Same with the std. You have to be responsible. If you sleep around you have a high risk of getting a std. If you have one partner or know where your partners have been (that's a weird talk tho) then you could be fine. Everything can be dangerous, yall just need to be responsible.

Lol you guys are like 17 right? You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

eheathLol you guys are like 17 right? You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

theyr not even 17 lol, closer to 15 or 14.

SFBtheyr not even 17 lol, closer to 15 or 14.

Shinbang is 17 tho right? An lencon is bfish friend so he's like 14? Stupid fucking kids