Benefits of boozing outweigh harms, says survey Psychologists in Seattle have confirmed a poorly acknowledged reality: that for many people, the benefits of drinking – even heavy drinking, on occasion – outweigh the downsides. Academics at the University of Washington, conducting the study, contend that this is a matter of perception rather than reality and have dubbed the …
Well fuck me! Who would have thought that booze can do that?
Which planet are they living on? Its a "phenomenon" thats been known about since the start of time and everyone who has indulged a little bit too much is well aware of the consequences and vows never to do it again.....until the next time.
Are they getting paid for this research?
There are countless ads warning of the dangers of drinking - and I don't mean "swear off alcohol forever," either. I'm talking about the 'scary' ads with people driving drunk, dying of alcohol poisoning, etc. According to this study, the students they surveyed could care less. They care more about being able to tell funnier jokes and stay up late than they do about death-by-alcohol-poisoning. The "rose-tinted beer goggles" stay on even after the beer itself is gone. Now, obviously, most people already knew this, but now we have proof - ads targeted at drinkers won't work, so save your money.
That would be a more unique situation than normal... seriously, man, think about things before you post! If they couldn't care less, then obviously anything said, irregardless of content, would have a neutral to positive affect. The students could of cared less, because there was a small amount to care with.
(There; that should hold the grammar Nazis for a while.)
One situation cannot be more unique than another, unless one is unique (an absolute state) and the other is not. Comparative statements of uniqueness are inexcusable. To be "a little unique" is to have slipped gracefully into a new category of rarity more commonly decribed as "unusual", "rare" or perhaps "out of the ordinary", if mood dictates.
"man"? are you absolutely certain your correspondant was a male?
Irregardless isn't really a word. Possibly you meant regardless.
Could of? Could OF? You mean could HAVE in all probability.
Your deployment of the semi-colon was a little ill-advised, and a mere comma would have been more acceptable, albeit less racey.
Finally, though no less importantly, "they could of cared less" is an Americanism. It is therefore also a truism, as our cousins tend to shy away from constructions that invite contradiction. Of course people have the capacity to care less about a particular issue. it doesn't mean that they will, merely that they might. To say that somebody "couldn't have cared less" is the sort of hyperbole that makes command of a language as expressive as English such a joy.
Oh wait a minute - I'm a grammar nazi. Oh the shame.
That's a good effort, but you seem to have missed three things:
1) I ended a sentence with a preposition ("...to care with").
2) I used the word "affect" (which, when used as a noun, means a 'feeling or emotion') instead of the word "effect."
3) The post was dripping in sarcasm.
While the average troll may actually write like that (thus losing the implied sarcasm), few trolls actually call themselves such; the troll icon should have given it away, as should the direct reference to grammar Nazis.
Also, while it may have been poor form to refer to the writer as male, the name "Andy McAndy" [capitalization assumed] is usually male, and thus my assumption was a safe one. Good catch on the semicolon, however.
"The killjoy psychologists suggest that the results of their study might somehow be used to put college students or people in general off boozing."
... but of course, even when your crafted study clearly contradicts the result you WANTED, there's still some way to spin it, eh?
"research"??? Dumbest thing I've ever read.
What happens as people's dependency level increases due to continual heavy use and they end up trapped into drinking. Granted this doesn't happen to everyone but for those who do fall into this trap it's a very slippery slope with only one outcome.
If I were you I wouldn't publish bollocks like this.
From the people I've seen, the dependancy thing tends to be related to the person rather than the drug; if they aren't dependant on 1 thing, it is another.
For those of us lucky enough to not have this particular trait, alcohol is quite pleasant.
For those afflicted with dependancies, it's awful, but I don't think that taking alcohol from everyone will particularly help those affected (sorry!)
that you're also better at driving after a few drinks - steadies the nerves, makes you less anxious, more confident. So you may as well plan to drive home, with your pals. I can't tell you how many close near misses I've had on the road after a night out, partly because the actual fact is that I don't drive and I'm making this up, but it just goes to show how much better you get when you drive in a relaxed state of mind. If you tried to do that sober then someone would get hurt, but pissed? No bother. Just look at Ryan Dunn and his passenger (BBC News Online, search for "Jackass"). Although don't look too close. Eww. Anyway, didn't feel a thing, I bet.
I was refering to the title of the article not reflecting what the article says. Someone failed to detect a little irony and put the blame on whoever... can't do much about that either. Most readers of that sort of article (including me) should be carefull using such words as "pathetic life".
This post has been deleted by its author
Well research suggest you made some effort to investigate and come to a conclusion, not just state the bleedin' obvious!
"People like having fun, because even though it can occasionally turn sour, most of the time, most people having fun remember the good bits and block out the bad bits!"
Right, can I have a £50k grant to investigate boozing and having fun?
To think that Mommy's precious angel would pick something they enjoy, such as boozing, over things they don't particularly care for, like class and work, it... it... it simply isn't conceivable really. I mean lets examine the facts. A students perception of their own measure, be it sexual prowess, sense of humor, whatever, appears to be far better with beer goggles than without. I'd wager their perception of this theory is far better than when it's put into practice.
Oh and the bit about the negatives of missed work will certainly change when they grow up... unless they are still working at the same pizza/burger/strip joint and don't need to show up until 4 pm. Just think, if they don't like work now, wait until they have to pee in a cup every few weeks or months.
So, students like booze. Who'd have thunk it! Of course, the real cost of booze comes in when you're looking for a job and you've got a grade lower in your degree than your low alcohol consuming contemporaries thanks to the well documented harm done by alcohol consumption to your sleep and your mental capabilities when you've finally sobered up.
And by what standard have these psychologist made the judgment that staying up later, better socialising, more/better sex is not worth the downside? Why is "fights" listed as a downside? Some people *like* to fight. Why is it that it's a terrible thing that "work" and "study" are affected? As if the most important thing in the world was labouring for the complex.
I hope that it's not the psychologists themselves who are making the value judgments. I suspect not. This study comes to us through a series of filters.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
