Once again you manage to oversimplify and completely distort what others are saying.

I'd like to seriously suggest that this thread be moved over to the P&R forum. Perhaps it belonged there all along, perhaps not, but considering that it's turning into the usual conservative vs. liberal game, it certainly belongs there now.

I was arguing about scale. You make it sound like a large portion of gay men are doing drugs like they're in a 70's rock band. I don't think that's the case AT ALL and said so. So if it's not really a widespread problem like you claim, then what's the big deal? Really?

Full disclosure here: I'm a total pot/acid/psychedelics head who could drink like a fish, but I've been completely clean and sober for 18 years as of 5/11. I went to AA for a while but I detest the either/or mentality that The Program fosters. A lot of people there just. don't. get. it. that not everyone is an obsessive or uses chemicals to blot out the pain of life, that MOST (see: my younger brother) use them in appropriate situations to enhance experiences. I refuse to be one of those Program ass****s who, just because I couldn't handle it, wants everyone else to be denied as well.

Fine, Ung, you have qualms about drug use. Whatever. But oh the irony that in a thread about personal responsibility you don't seem willing to give people enough credit to make judgements about what's appropriate and what's not for themselves.
Again with the hyperbole. There's a vast difference between, say, a guy shooting $200 a day worth of heroin and Joe Sixpack who smokes a joint every few months at a concert; in a lot of anti-drug peoples minds (I'm not ascribing this attitude to you, I have no evidence to do so) there's no difference. In the junkies case, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING, is going to stop him unless he wants to. Period. JSP who smokes the joints doesn't have "a problem", so people should leave him the f**k alone. My parents tried for years to get me to rehab and it wasn't until I hit rock bottom that I sought help. It's why there's a program called Al-Anon for the people with the rescue fantasies, to disabuse them of that notion.

Have y'all seen the new anti-drug commercial that first aired during the Super Bowl? A straight couple gets a poz on a pregnancy test and then the camera pans to their daughter sitting on the toilet and a pompous, portentious voice comes on spewing some bullshit saying pot smoking leads to unwanted pregnancy. It's totally offensive because 1) it ignores the fact that the vastly larger portion are booze related but we'd never see that kind of ad because of how much money the booze industries pours in to lobbying and 2) sex is not, generally, a priority of people sitting around smoking pot. Eating 3 bags of Mrs. Fields cookies and watching something like Spongebob is though.

The "War on Drugs" is a total, complete, utter abysmal failure and overtly racist (ie sentencing laws for powder v. crack cocaine) so the sooner we see the backside of that doomed-to-fail attempt at social coercion, the better. And what a f**kin' black hole for tax money to boot.

Lawd. That sounded awfully Republican, that last sentence, didn't it? Sorry for the heated language contained herein, but it's a hot button topic for me, obviously.

I don't think what the author refers to as "taking personal responsibility" is particularly responsible, at all. He seems to feel that the guy who got groped in the bar should just shut up, because that's expected in that venue. If more people throw "hissy fits" rather than ignoring unacceptable behavior, maybe it'll dissuade these ass****s from doing it. I'd say complaining is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. I think inadvertently wandering into a gay bar and getting groped by some creep is likely to have a considerably more homophobia-inducing effect on a straight guy than watching Queer as Folk. He also seems to suggest (at least the way the article is constructed) that people who experience date rape shouldn't complain. So it's responsible to keep silent and let some predator claim more victims? Let's be honest--how many people can honestly say they've never accepted a ride with a casual acquaintance? The fact that, as William points out, the Matthew Shepard murder is NOT a common occurrence shows that what Shepard did was not taking that unreasonable a risk. People (especially gay men) take that risk all the time. That wasn't the first risk he took either. He met them in a bar, and anytime you go to a bar, there's a risk someone might drop something in your drink (I know two people that has happened to). Hell, crossing the street to get to the bar was a risk.

I don't think you can demonstrate by whether someone actually experiences ill effects that their drug use was responsible. After all, some smokers live to be 90, but I don't see that their behavior was intrinsically any safer than those who die of lung cancer in those 40's. You have to look at the risks they take. Personally, I think it's difficult to be truly responsible in taking illegal drugs simply because you don't really know what's in them--you may be taking risks you don't know about, unless you have your own lab or grow your own. But to suggest no drugs can be responsibly taken is absurdly fundamentalist. Everyone who uses caffeine is irresponsible? And as dangerous as alcohol is, it has been shown to be quite healthy in moderate amounts.

It's one thing to make a judgement call on what's safe for you, quite another to make that judgement for other people.

I really don't understand why Bouley argues that people who aren't out are part of the problem in the gay movement. If he really believes we should take personal responsibility for our actions, then we should NEVER be out - just like he wasn't at the biker bar. After all, as the Catholic Church so nicely told us, gay men and women invite violence on ourselves when we insist on being out - because, after all, homosexuality is met with a natural sense of revulsion. To take his argument to a logical extension, all of us should be closeted, and should immediately stop visiting this site, because it will mark us as gay and then any anti-gay idiot could attack us - and that would be our fault for getting into a bad situation.

As for the Mike Tyson case - he LIED to her - she thought they were going out to an after-hours club, I believe, and she wanted a little face time with a celebrity. Hell, even if she went up to his room with the express intent of having sex, when does a woman, or any person, give up the right to change her mind? If you are in the middle of sex with someone and they say "Stop" should you continue just because they should have known you would want to finish sex?

The real problem I have with nearly everything Bouley writes is that he is more than willing to demonize the gay community, much as the Religious Right does, by insisting we are all alike, or all responsible for every action that every gay person does. I have no interest in meth, K, X, or any other club drug, and it is not my responsibility if some idiot twink does them.

posted by Phillyfan:
Now, now Phillyfan, as a bleeding heart liberal, I have a little problem with this. There is a huge difference between explaining a problem and excusing it. For example, my most shameful moment was when I was arrested for drunk driving. Thankfully, the only thing I hurt was my reputation. I took personal responsibility, pled guilty, paid the fine, took the classes and went to probation. The fact that I can blame the incident on my being closeted (long story short, it was the night I knew for sure that I was gay, it wasn't a phase, and I would never change) in no way eliminates my responsibility for making such a huge idiotic move or in atoning for it as society required.

NOT deep full thinkness burns. That is not what you should expect when spilling coffee on one's self. There is a HUGE difference between spilling a 140 degree coffee and something 180 and in damage that can do.

No one likes a lukewarm coffee, But coffee can be tens below 180 and not be lukewarm. An insulating styro cup is going to keep anything hot for a long time that is beyond 100 degrees.

I do if spill it on myself! what I meant is after it is spilled. Most hot liquids should stop burning your skin after few seconds. 180 liquids do their jobs for a significant time even after it's spilled. It has a many degrees to go before it eventually stops being painful.

[ April 17, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: savvy ]

Another point in the Tyson case...my first response was the girl was nuts to go to hotel room with him. But then I remembered she was only 18, she was probably star-struck by his celebrity status...under the circumstances, her naivete is not that surprising.

Whether putting yourself or others at risk depends on whether you agree with the reason for the risk. Not so obvious maybe.

I wonder if the author would agree with the risk taken by the 100 or so men and women in our armed forces who died in Iraq.

Was it right or wrong for their lives to be put at risk? If wrong, who should be blamed...and pay..and how?

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for speaking out on this topic. The McDonald's scandal is one of my pet topics as well. I call it a "scandal" because of the incredibly deft way that the McDonald's PR folks took a heinous situation that McDonald's created for itself and twisted it around. Incredible. Saddam should have had such great PR. He'd look like a victim, too.

Talk about personal responsibility. What about corporate responsibility? Why do you think that the initial jury award was so high? Why do you think that the award remained so high even after it was reduced? Because hte evidence showed that McDonald's undertook significant analysis of the most profitable temperature at which to sell coffee and factored in the cost of injury that it knew was certain to occur. When juries get angry at corporate arrogance or insouciance, they hit 'em in the wallet.

Yep, it was stupid to hold coffee between the knees. But everyone has done it from time to time while putting in cream, sugar, whatever, and even if you get a hot splash, the most you expect is a first degree burn, not second- and third-degree burns! And to suggest that it didn't matter that the plaintiff's genitals were burned because she was a senior citizen is shocking.

(stopping to catch breath)

Hey, I'm all about personal responsibility. But it goes both ways.

GatorJ

P.S. I'm a former insurance defense attorney...

oh please...... there are certain laws of physics at play here. Coffee is a liquid. additionally coffee is a liquid that can not be boiled lest it be ruined. therefore it must be kept hot but not so hot that it would boil.

You guys are making it sound like instead of Colombian supremo in the coffeecup, McDO gave her a red hot tong instead.

I believe in personal AND corporate responsibility also. the fact of the matter is individuals and corporations will try to place blame elsewhere and they will always take the path of least resistance.

Suing the tobacco industry because "I didn't know smoking was bad for ya" or suing McDo because "I didn't know eating BigMacs for every meal would make me fat" is just another sign of people not wanting to take the blame for their own idiocy.


And don't even get me started on the insurance industry. drawing on my experience working on cap hill..... they are slime balls.

[ April 18, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

That certainly sheds some light on the case. I had thought earlier of suggesting that the suit may have done McDonalds a favor by encouraging them to do exactly that type of research. But since they had already done it, it makes this look more like a case of a company being held responsible for making a faulty product that threatened health and safety.

In such cases the punishment, in order to suit the crime must be large enough to penalize. Micky D has deep pockets.

Our legal system is often a clumsy way to enforce public safety but when there are not enough people who believe it's worthwhile or appropriate for the government to do so, it's the only thing available.