Is This an "Ignorant Statement?"

In this case it seems like another way of blaming the victim. Just because she was drinking does not mean she could or would have been able to avoid being murdered. 

definately not ignorant. i think   research would show it to be true as i find in my observations.

I don't think it's an ignorant statement, but in this context, I think it is a cruel one.

 It IS true that when we have had a few drinks, we become less aware of our surroundings. I am sure that there have been instances where a person would have noticed that someone was following them, for example, if they had been perfectly sober.

But no one knows in this instance whether alcohol was a factor, and to speculate about it is cruel to the survivors. And pointless.

I don't see why it would be seen as an ignorant statement. It's true and it's the argument a lot of people make when they're caught committing crimes, doing stupid things, etc. "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing".

____________________________

It is ignorant in the sense that teetotalers try to put blame on alcohol for most everything that goes wrong in society.

If I drink 6 beers while watching TV at my home, and a tornado blows my house away, is it my fault?

No, but if you get in your car and drive over someone after those 6 beers have clouded your senses it's your fault.  Your example has nothing at all to do with the statement.

Alcohol is THE DRUG that is responsible for more death, destruction, family violence and other tragic and criminal activity than any other drug.  But most folks who drink are comfortable with not considering alcohol a drug.

You missed the point, as usual.

A woman drinking in a bar bears no causation on her being attacked and murdered.  They are unrelated facts.  To claim otherwise is ignorant.  Teetotalers are ignorant. 

I think I made myself clear. 

uM.

That's what alcohol is FOR.

People don't drink alky to make themselves sharper. Anybody who says they do is lying. They do it to get varying degrees of stupid because it does impair judgement and awareness.  Some folks think that's 'fun' and I'm sure that under safe, controlled circumstances, it is.

The statement is not 'ignorant.'  I'd say it's true and very 'to the point.'

I don't think the statement blamed the victim, but it's nevertheless true. I can think of two instances where alcohol caused drivers to make bad decisions. A driver some years ago couldn't discern which side of the road a parked police car was on, causing him to leave the road and hit two officers, killing one. He was found not guilty of vehicular homicide in this local case.

A second case I saw on a news program involved a man who had used alcohol moderately, had a migraine, parked, then decided he was able to drive. He thought he was still on an access road, but had actually entered a two-way highway and killed someone. He was convicted in Texas. The rationale being that the migraine caused the accident, but the alcohol caused him to misjudge his ability to drive.

Alcohol also obscures the taste of GHB and other "date rape" chemicals. It can lessen inhibitions making one more trusting in some cases. No matter what the victim had or did not have to drink, her killer is obviously a sub-human piece of garbage who, if found, should serve a life sentence. Of course if it was in Lauderdale County, he would get only 10 to 25 years.

How do you know the woman mentioned in the post starting this thread was drinking alcohol?  Or does it even matter? 

For all anyone knows, drinking Diet Coke might be her idea of "drinking with friends".   Thats why it is ignorant, and idiotic, cause you geniuses are making presumptions about things for which you have no facts. 

No genius, the question ask was "is the statement (about alcohol) ignorant". Try to keep up. I said that the story didn't make it clear and you're left to conclude, because the statement was made, that they felt she had enough to drink to dull or cloud her senses.  No one is trying to blame the girl for her death, but you'd sure like to twist it to mean that. You're the ignorant idiotic one here.

Women should stay at home, barefoot and off the computer.

And making me a sammich.

As far as death, I would argue that nicotine was responsible for more because of it's addictive power.

=====================================================================------------

“going out drinking” sounds reckless in itself.  The drinking may not have killed her but more than likely it caused her to be less cautious. I think to argue otherwise is dangerous to anyone who might read your assessment.

Thank You! For correcting this pompous azzed "Factoid".

___________________________

I'm sure you would have added bedroom if you weren't drinking & your brain was functioning so you could have thought of it.

I like my women like I like my computer...high speed, low maintenance and always turned on.

That's more or less the theme of this topic. When I read the statement about alcohol, I didn't think anything religious about it since it's certainly something taught in nursing school. Alcohol is the number one abused drug. More people drink now than smoke. I looked at it just as I would a post about peanut butter for a child. If you can wait until the child is five or so, don't let them eat peanut butter since it can cause a fatal allergy. There's nothing religious about that...just common sense.

No where in the question did it suggest that anyone thought she should have been murdered for having too much to drink, if she even did. We don't drink, not because we think it's wrong to drink, but because we just don't like the taste of most of it. I like margaritas, but not enough to have more than a couple a year. I will admit that I don't understand someone that has to drink too excess, such as more than a beer or two at a time. But I guess the point there is to get drunk or get a buzz or whatever. So it seems like people would know it impairs them and would stay put while they're drunk, or at least have someone sober looking out for them. I'm not talking about this girl because no one has established if she was drunk or not. I'm talking about anyone that drinks to that point. Not only can bad things happen to the one impaired but they can do bad things to others. It's just reckless to do it, and I don't care who it is, I have never seen a "funny drunk".

<<<<<<<<<<in a real high pitched whiney voice>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What’s wrong with  responsible drinkers getting’ drunk and killing people on the highways?

naw best you all don't drink because you know better.

__________________________________

Who is "you all"?

It's more satisfying if ya can do it sober and before the clock runs down.

So many targets.....So little time.

best said "we don't drink" i certainly wasn't includind you semi if it makes you feel better.

   if you have a wreck and kill someone and you are under the limit but still have alcohol in your system ; if i'm on the jury i will vote guilty of homicide.

in my circle of friends who drink, they all drink over the limit and drive. i even hear them argue with a spouse that they are ok to drive. BS

If not over the legal limit there will be no evidence presented of alcohol consumption, nor probably even a trial since to prove a "homicide" in a vehicular accident without the presence of alcohol, one would have to prove intent, which is not usually possible in a traffic accident. 

Ditto, it might be a rarity, and is probably not kosher, but there was a case some years ago where just that did happen. The woman, who may or may not have been driving the car, had been released earlier in the day after a DUI charge. That was allowed in court, and the woman was convicted.

Anyone can rationalize all day long that alcohol is the juice of choice to guide one through life but if you mess with it it will jump up and bite you in the butt one of these days and possibly cause an unnecessary death.

          Alcohol will never be done away with but the fear of it has to the majority. I will never vote for it and not because of religious beliefs. It has been consumed since the beginning of time.

          I just think it serves no good purpose.

You're not stopping a thing by not voting for it. Living in a "wet" area is no different than living in a "dry" area. There is as much alcohol to be found in the dry as the wet. All you're doing is sending tax dollars elsewhere, just like we do with the lottery.

_____________________________

What was she convicted of if it wasn't known if she was driving the car?

i'm for the lottery but not for alcohol best.

      i wish i knew the actual facts about the lottery, like how much of the money actually goes to the schools.

_______________________________

I saw a chart once in which Tennessee showed how much money went where & the schools got a bunch. I was told they give an accounting at the end of each year.

I do know that the casino's in Tunica give alot of money to the schools in Mississippi because I asked. 

I don't see anything wrong with having a glass of wine with dinner or drinking in moderation.

You never know that person passing you on the road could be high on crack, not necessarily alcohol.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation. It means nothing for a county to be dry, nothing except the loss of revenue.

i just hope if Alabama gets the lottery a bunch of crooks are not in charge.

          i would suggest a board made up of churches to implement a lottery.

Churches in charge? LOL!!!! Yeah right, put the fox in charge of the hen house!! Talk about a bunch of crooks!