Re: Vortex Spring -- Political Correctiveness Invades the Florida Panhandle


"Lee Bell" wrote

Maybe the only one that posted it. I actually dislike the idea, but
understand where some form or check of compliance may be necessary due to
the stubbornness of some to obey the wishes of those within their
rights to ban an item on their property. Never did I endorse a vehicle
search in this instance.

That's considerably different from your original statement that you had no
problem with their policy. Their need to impose their will does not give
them a right to search anything, on their premises or off.

The policy of banning alcohol. Didn't clarify how originally, so how
does it differ?

I suspect you are trying to impose your will as well.

Here are your exact words:

"Not everyone views drunk & disorderly as "cute", nor believes alcohol is
necessary to enjoy life."

That certainly seems to presume that anyone that has a drink is drunk and
disorderly to me. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but it's sure what
you seemed to be saying.

That is a big, misguided jump.

I could look up the exact name for the type of fallacy, but I won't,
suffice to say I know that is an error in logic.

I'll say it more clearly. You're the only one that equated taking a
cooler containing alcoholic beverages out of the car to show intent to
consume it in an area where doing so is not permitted.

Yes, bringing the alcohol with you, out of the vehicle, indicates intent
to drink it.

Sometimes even the "mellow drunks" can be quite annoying and a greater
liability due to their loss of judgment, motor skills, etc.

You're presuming again. Chances that you would even know a mellow drunk
was drunk are very small. It's hard to be annoyed by what you don't know
about. Not everyone loses judgement just because they have a few drinks.
Not everyone loses significant motor skills because they have a few
drinks. Some people have better motor skills, and reaction times when
their drunk than others have when they are sone cold sober. I've proved
that more than once.

No, you're not proving anything, since

1) You're hung up on the label drunk, not even mine, being given too
lightly.

2) You insist on making a policy or general opinion a personal attack on
your habits.

and

3) You are trying to win an exemption.

Since what I am really addressing is that the policy of banning alcohol
from a business is an acceptable policy, not whether Lee is a nice drunk,
not quite drunk, or merely a social drinker, what I personally consider to
be drunk, or how well you can function when you're drinking alcohol, your
whining is falling on deaf ears.

I purposely made replies to "unidentified" quotes to keep it as a
general statement.

My own anecdotes merely show that the "***" image in enforcement has
been incorrect in my experiences.

Sometimes it's acceptable behavior, but not to some
property owners and businesses, and they do have that right to ban
consumption of alcohol on their premises.

Yes they do, but presence of alcohol in a cooler is neither consumption
nor intent and they do not have the right to search cars or coolers
regardless.

My opinion differs.


Why would you carry a beverage you do not intend to drink? First Aid?
Self Defense?

Or for consumption at the point you were carrying it, or maybe just in
defiance of the management?

This whole argument (to me) is only being made to try to circumvent the
policy and/or intimidate those who choose it. Once again, don't like the
policy, don't go. Try not to let the gate hit you in the ass on the way
out.

Not at all. Grumman's first statement was that he would take his business
elsewhere. So was mine.

So he didn't make a derogatory post about a business's policies in the
process?

Is that not what started the rebuttal?

I cannot recall reading a simple "Hey guys, they don't allow us to drink
at (blank)!"

The only person forcing their view on anyone is the property owner. The
rest of us simply decided to take our business, and his income, elsewhere.
The golden rule still reads "He who has the gold, makes the rules." I'll
keep my gold.

Bet he'll do well without yours.

You've lost your bet about other businesses surviving without your
endorsements.

Think one even submitted to being wanded for weapons to enter an
establishment that sold alcohol as their business, as I did, which was a
business owner exercising his right of judgment to disarm all who entered
his business. Guess a few would have a problem with that too.

You bet. There is no right to disarm anyone who enters any business. The
only right is to exclude those who decline to disarm themselves.

Exactly, that was the idea. I didn't take it as a right to disarm, I
took it as his right to turn away those who chose to be armed from their
establishment.

Comparing the right to bear arms with a private business's right to keep
armed persons from their business, a business that sells a legal mood
altering drug for on-site consumption, is just plain silly.

The checks were done by the rangers having me lift the lid, then
looking in without touching anything anything. Done very politely, with
the
choice being open or leave.

I'd have been gone.

Your choice. Obviously not mine.

Many years ago, after a nearly 100 mile bicycle ride to such a park, we
did have a single six-pack to split three ways, well below what could be
considered a quantity that could present a problem. We were politely
given the choice of dumping or leaving. We dumped the cans, grumbled a
bit of course, but accepted the fact we were in violation of a rule that
did
indeed make the park more enjoyable to the general public.

You went beyond intent, right to consumption. I would have dumped it too.
What part of your comment supports "a rule that did indeed make the park
more enjoyable to the general public?" Did you abuse somebody in your
drunk and disorderly state or were you your normal considerate self?

Actually, no, I did not get beyond intent.

And, although my involvement was reluctant, I was indeed responsible for
going along.

Specifically, I was more likely to appease friends and bend to peer
pressure at that time.

My comment about "more enjoyable" is not supported in my comments, it is
my opinion based on personal experiences, story more supports my views that
enforcement has been done tactfully in my experiences.

I am also now burdened by being an example to my approaching legal age
children. Some rules are worthy of rebellion. These are not. In fact,
they may well be considered commendable.

Was explained to us that they used to only enforce the problem causers,
but that didn't seem to work well enough, so "zero tolerance" became
policy.

They same the same thing about guns, exactly the same thing.

Major differences.

I'm really concerned now that I know people keep their weapons in their
coolers too. Greg must be LOVING those statements of bravado.

That would be a silly place for them.

Then how are they going to find out you have one by checking your
cooler?

Are you going to protect your imaginary right to posess alcohol on
private property with deadly force?

There seems to be a presumption that those that carry weapons in parks and
preserves, the Everglades in my case, do so for defense against criminals,
as most do outside of such areas.

So, you are insisting that possession of alcohol is for self defense?
First Aid?

Guess I'll have to put a can in a sock and try it sometime.......of
course, a can of soda would work as well, but that wouldn't support your
thesis.

Guess this means I don't buy your analogy.

Curtis


.