What Are You Drinking Thread? Good Friday edition

PopePalpatine

Ah balls, I was hoping that showing my Leap Card in Connolly Station's pub would be enough!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Shrap

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

T'would add a bit to the price of a pint. Depends on how determined you are. I do feel sorry for you city dwellers on Good Friday. Gotta love the rural lock-ins

Edit: I'll be drinking whatever is on offer in the local shop - under the counter selling as per usual

efb

Friday, Diet coke, have been off drink for a while

Pherekydes

I have the remaining Carlsberg (from Xmas) chilling in the fridge.

Blowfish

Girlfriend has booked us into a restaurant that does BYOB on good Friday, so I'll probably be on the whiskey.

Hotblack Desiato

I always thought BYOB referred to wine, never considered bringing whiskey, but I like your moxie

That nonsense a couple of posts up. If the early hours of Saturday are 'still the night of good Friday' then that means the early hours of Friday are 'still Thursday night'. Can't have it both ways lads.

Yet again, we are promised 'next year, maybe' when it comes to repealing one of the most stupid, unnecessary and unwanted laws on the statute books. And yet again the catholic apologists are excusing it :mad:

It's a damn shame that the American War of Independence-era concept of Liberty never took hold on this island. The state should only restrict the freedom of individuals to the absolute minimum extent necessary to the running of an orderly society. Our 'independence' just changed an oppressor in London for another in Rome.

pauldla

Coffee. Wife has gone home for the Qing Ming (Tomb-sweeping) Festival, so I'm looking after the kids for the weekend.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yet again, we are promised 'next year, maybe' when it comes to repealing one of the most stupid, unnecessary and unwanted laws on the statute books. And yet again the catholic apologists are excusing it :mad:

It's a damn shame that the American War of Independence-era concept of Liberty never took hold on this island. The state should only restrict the freedom of individuals to the absolute minimum extent necessary to the running of an orderly society. Our 'independence' just changed an oppressor in London for another in Rome.

It always amuses me how people like to present the Good Friday closing laws as instances of religious oppression and on this board, devoted as it is to promoting scepticism and critical thinking, the trope is never challenged or questioned.

The Intoxicating Liquor Act 1927 banned the sale of alcohol on Good Friday, St. Patrick's Day and Christmas Day. (The St. Patrick's Day ban was later lifted; the other two are still in force.) Slightly inconveniently for the poor-oppressed-us trope, the Catholic church doesn't forbid drinking on any of these days, and never has. Also slightly inconveniently, the Irish legislation was, apart from the inclusion of St. Patrick's day, a replication of existing British legislation, which had also been replicated in most of the (not very Catholic-dominated) Canadian provinces and Australian states, and in New Zealand. If anything, with respect to Christmas Day the traditional ant-Catholic criticism has been of encouraging festivity, conviviality, and excess. Whatever unites this three days and the legal restrictions on alcohol sale in various countries, it's not a censorious Catholic attitude to alcohol, or a general dominance of governments by the Catholic church.

What does unite them, though, is a history of persistent public drunkenness and public order problems - precisely the kind of social problem that, per Hotblack, a government concerned with "the running of an orderly society" should be concerned with. Now, you could reasonably debate whether a ban on alcohol sales is, or was ever, a useful, effective or justifiable response to the problem, but since that debate is no use when it comes to fostering a "poor Catholic-oppressed us" mentality, why bother to have it?

As for the "American War of Independence-era concept of liberty", can Hotblack really be unaware that, even as the Good Friday ban was being debated in Ireland, a much more sweeping ban was under discussion in the US, and that it was, in fact, adopted? It's not at all clear that claiming, or fondly imagining, that your ideals were shared by the proponents in the American War of Independence is a terribly effective protection against either social or legal puritanism.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

It always amuses me how people like to present the Good Friday closing laws as instances of religious oppression and on this board, devoted as it is to promoting scepticism and critical thinking, the trope is never challenged or questioned.

The Intoxicating Liquor Act 1927 banned the sale of alcohol on Good Friday, St. Patrick's Day and Christmas Day. (The St. Patrick's Day ban was later lifted; the other two are still in force.) Slightly inconveniently for the poor-oppressed-us trope, the Catholic church doesn't forbid drinking on any of these days, and never has. Also slightly inconveniently, the Irish legislation was, apart from the inclusion of St. Patrick's day, a replication of existing British legislation, which had also been replicated in most of the (not very Catholic-dominated) Canadian provinces and Australian states, and in New Zealand. If anything, with respect to Christmas Day the traditional ant-Catholic criticism has been of encouraging festivity, conviviality, and excess. Whatever unites this three days and the legal restrictions on alcohol sale in various countries, it's not a censorious Catholic attitude to alcohol, or a general dominance of governments by the Catholic church.

What does unite them, though, is a history of persistent public drunkenness and public order problems - precisely the kind of social problem that, per Hotblack, a government concerned with "the running of an orderly society" should be concerned with. Now, you could reasonably debate whether a ban on alcohol sales is, or was ever, a useful, effective or justifiable response to the problem, but since that debate is no use when it comes to fostering a "poor Catholic-oppressed us" mentality, why bother to have it?

As for the "American War of Independence-era concept of liberty", can Hotblack really be unaware that, even as the Good Friday ban was being debated in Ireland, a much more sweeping ban was under discussion in the US, and that it was, in fact, adopted? It's not at all clear that claiming, or fondly imagining, that your ideals were shared by the proponents in the American War of Independence is a terribly effective protection against either social or legal puritanism.

For 'Catholic' read 'Christian'; the Temperance movements in the above-mentioned territories were strongly Christian in origin and outlook, and saw themselves on a divine mission to rid the world (and the 'lower classes') of the blight of alcohol abuse, I believe. The Temperance movements gradually lost influence during the course of the 20th Century, and were finally all-but-finished by the end of WW2; except in strongly religious areas, of course (is there a broad correlation between 'dry counties' and religiosity in the US, for example?).


I'm still on the coffee.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

For 'Catholic' read 'Christian'; the Temperance movements in the above-mentioned territories were strongly Christian in origin and outlook, and saw themselves on a divine mission to rid the world (and the 'lower classes') of the blight of alcohol abuse, I believe . . .

Sure, but ridding society of "the blight of alcohol abuse" falls pretty squarely into the kind of social objective that, Hotblack concedes, is very much the proper concern of a government. Restrictive licensing laws aimed at controlling alcohol abuse are no more religious oppression than are, say, laws against assault or murder. Public drunkenness, assault and murder are all social evils of varying degrees of seriousness. They don't cease to be so merely because one or more religious traditions look on them with disfavour.

In any event, even if we establish that a social movement which has influences Irish legislation is heavily Protestant in origins and influence - which is the case for the temperance movement and its associated legislation - that's not really evidence which points towards Catholic dominance of Irish laws, is it? On the contrary, it suggests that Irish laws are open to influence from non-Catholic as well as from Catholic voices.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure, but ridding society of "the blight of alcohol abuse" falls pretty squarely into the kind of social objective that, Hotblack concedes, is very much the proper concern of a government. Restrictive licensing laws aimed at controlling alcohol abuse are no more religious oppression than are, say, laws against assault or murder. Public drunkenness, assault and murder are all social evils of varying degrees of seriousness. They don't cease to be so merely because one or more religious traditions look on them with disfavour.

In any event, even if we establish that a social movement which has influences Irish legislation is heavily Protestant in origins and influence - which is the case for the temperance movement and its associated legislation - that's not really evidence which points towards Catholic dominance of Irish laws, is it? On the contrary, it suggests that Irish laws are open to influence from non-Catholic as well as from Catholic voices.

And governments do do that; they tax (oh how they tax; current taxes on alcohol can be dated back to the Crusades, if not earlier), they regulate, and so on. Pressure groups of a religious bent attempting to sway the law of the land to be more in line with their religious convictions is another kettle of fish entirely, is it not? Indeed, the Temperance movement may have done more harm than good, given the awful spectacle of the Six O'Clock Swill in Australia, and the results of Prohibition in the US.

As to the Irish experience, is it possible to point to the days that were singled out to be 'dry' and suggest that there was little to no Catholic impetus?

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

And governments do do that; they tax (oh how they tax; current taxes on alcohol can be dated back to the Crusades, if not earlier), they regulate, and so on. Pressure groups of a religious bent attempting to sway the law of the land to be more in line with their religious convictions is another kettle of fish entirely, is it not? Indeed, the Temperance movement may have done more harm than good, given the awful spectacle of the Six O'Clock Swill in Australia, and the results of Prohibition in the US.

As to the Irish experience, is it possible to point to the days that were singled out to be 'dry' and suggest that there was little to no Catholic impetus?

Given that Catholicism doesn't itself treat those days as "dry", the impetus can only be indirect. What the days have in common is (a) they are all public holidays, and (b) they became so because of their religious significance (unlike, say, New Year's Day, or the August or October bank holidays). As a result the Catholic church may be particularly embarrassed by public drunkenness on those holidays, and might favour measures to reduce this. But if you really want to point to religious influence in all this, that influence is obviuosly manifested mainly in the fact that these days are holidays at all; the support for temperance measures on those days is pretty much a by-product.

But who wants to argue for fewer public holidays? And it goes against every instinct of the regulars on this board ever to canvass the possibility that religious influence on civic life could ever have an outcome that could be considered beneficial (like a public holiday). So (a) the role of religious belief in securing the holiday in the first place is never mentioned, but (b) the fact that, historically, some of those supporting temperance measures had a religious motivation is parlayed up into monstrous oppression through Rome Rule.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure, but ridding society of "the blight of alcohol abuse"

an aside, but afaik, last year was the first year in the recent past where average irish alcohol consumption increased; it's now at 11l of alcohol per person per year, was over 14l about ten years ago.

i've seen it pointed out that the minimum price per unit proposal is a boon to the supermarkets, as it's not a tax, so it just drastically increases their profit margin on cheap booze.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

an aside, but afaik, last year was the first year in the recent past where average irish alcohol consumption increased; it's now at 11l of alcohol per person per year, was over 14l about ten years ago.

Well, yes, but 10 years ago it was pretty much at an all-time high, and anyone who quotes you a statistic based on a comparison with an all-time high, without mentioning that rather significant detail, has probably got an agenda. If your comparator year was 20 years ago, or 30 years, or 40 years, instead of 10 years ago, then the long-term trend over all those periods to date is upwards, not downwards. Basically, over the past fifty years or so alcohol consumption in Ireland has risen steadily (it was 4.82 l/head in 1960), peaked a little over 10 years ago, but still remains at what are historically very high levels.

(Of course, there's more to this than absolute consumption per head; patterns of consumption matter as well as the volume, as does the social context in which consumption occurs. But so long as we are looking at absolute consumption figures, the fact is that they remain at historically high levels.)

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen it pointed out that the minimum price per unit proposal is a boon to the supermarkets, as it's not a tax, so it just drastically increases their profit margin on cheap booze.

It may increase their profit margin, but it will presumably reduce their volume of sales, which I imagine is the objective. And if it reduces their volume enough, then their overall profits will fall, not rise.

(Not that, if the policy objective is to moderate the consumption of alcohol,the effect on supermarket profits matters, one way or the other.)

rainbow kirby

If I can recover a stomach for drink by then (was home last week for a family funeral, there was a little too much consumed and the thought of more booze is not very appealing) there will be a couple of quiet pints of ale with my OH. We're driving north for the Easter break.

PopePalpatine

The big problem of drinking for me has been goddamned stomach aches. I've tried Alka-Seltzer, deflatine tablets, drinking about a gallon of water and drinking a lot of coffee, but none have worked. I vaguely remember avoiding a stomach ache after eating a few bread rolls for breakfast while on a weekend break in Bremen, but that's never been repeated.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may increase their profit margin, but it will presumably reduce their volume of sales, which I imagine is the objective. And if it reduces their volume enough, then their overall profits will fall, not rise.

the example given was that tesco currently sell a bottle of vodka for €13, and the price would rise to €18 under this proposal; so if tesco currently make (figure plucked off the top of my head) €2 per bottle, their profit will rise to €7; that gives a lot of leeway for a drop in volume.

magicbastarder

in regards to the thread title, probably balvenie triple cask after a couple of yannaroddy porters from the kinnegar brewery.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

[...] a couple of yannaroddy porters from the kinnegar brewery.

Not bad stuff, but unpronouncable - and therefore unorderable - after three or four of them.

magicbastarder

i am impressed by the fact that you were able to take and post a photo of one within two minutes of me mentioning it.

Shrap

magicbastarder wrote: »

i am impressed by the fact that you were able to take and post a photo of one within two minutes of me mentioning it.

I had to google it too....

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

the example given was that tesco currently sell a bottle of vodka for €13, and the price would rise to €18 under this proposal; so if tesco currently make (figure plucked off the top of my head) €2 per bottle, their profit will rise to €7; that gives a lot of leeway for a drop in volume.

So what? If alcohol consumption levels are a legitimate public health and welfare issue, are you suggesting that addressing issue should take second place to the noble cause of screwing Tesco?

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

i am impressed by the fact that you were able to take and post a photo of one within two minutes of me mentioning it.

That was from a late-night session in February - the guys really need to rename the stuff if they want people to be able to order more than four in the one evening.

Yannaroddy is the name of a local field, if memory serves (and I'll be surprised if it does).

Peregrinus

Googling tells me that it's a "coconut porter".

I'm not normally the judgmental type, but I say that's a sin against nature.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Googling tells me that it's a "coconut porter".

that's news to me, i don't think i tasted coconut in it.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

It always amuses me how people like to present the Good Friday closing laws as instances of religious oppression and on this board, devoted as it is to promoting scepticism and critical thinking, the trope is never challenged or questioned.

:pac:

Slightly inconveniently for the poor-oppressed-us trope, the Catholic church doesn't forbid drinking on any of these days, and never has.

True, but that will come as news to many observant catholics.

Also slightly inconveniently, the Irish legislation was, apart from the inclusion of St. Patrick's day, a replication of existing British legislation,

Contrary to the 1950s/60s propaganda here, Britain was not some sort of godless nation. It has had (and still has) more than its fair share of legislation which panders to religion. e.g. until less than 20 years ago they still had ridiculously restrictive laws on Sunday trading, and when change was proposed the objections came from the usual conservative christian quarters.

Whatever unites this three days and the legal restrictions on alcohol sale in various countries, it's not a censorious Catholic attitude to alcohol, or a general dominance of governments by the Catholic church.

I must be imagining Fr Mathew and the Pioneer movement so.

What does unite them, though, is a history of persistent public drunkenness and public order problems - precisely the kind of social problem that, per Hotblack, a government concerned with "the running of an orderly society" should be concerned with.

Not on Christmas Day.
Yes on St Patrick's Day, but we abolished the booze ban on that.
What is your evidence of drink-related public order issues occurring on Good Friday, and that a complete ban on alcohol sales is necessary on that day? None.

Now, you could reasonably debate whether a ban on alcohol sales is, or was ever, a useful, effective or justifiable response to the problem, but since that debate is no use when it comes to fostering a "poor Catholic-oppressed us" mentality, why bother to have it?

You have simply no evidence whatsoever that the ban on alcohol sales on Good Friday is not religiously inspired. Certainly this is the reason it has not been abolished, tourism etc. interests have been calling for this for years, but the catholic right will object to progressive change as usual.

As for the "American War of Independence-era concept of liberty", can Hotblack really be unaware that, even as the Good Friday ban was being debated in Ireland, a much more sweeping ban was under discussion in the US, and that it was, in fact, adopted?

Prohibition pissed on the face of Liberty. A contemporary Supreme Court would not for a moment consider such a trampling on citizens' rights as constitutional. Again we are back to religious influence on society and the anti-alcohol movement of that time.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the days have in common is (a) they are all public holidays

Good Friday is not a public holiday.

vicwatson

Does a priest drink wine at mass today?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

vicwatson

Then Meh !!! Another pint barman