On 22-6-2013 13:21, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/06/2013 11:43 AM, andrel wrote:
>> On 22-6-2013 12:32, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2013 11:15 AM, andrel wrote:
>>>> quod non*.
>>>>
>>>> *) That is a latin phrase that is sometimes used in the Netherlands.
>>>> Might be uncommon in other countries.
>>>
>>>
>>> Au contraire. ;-)
>>
>> Fabelhaft
>>
>
> I am not going head to head with a Nederlander. It seems to me that you
> are all born speaking six languages. ;-)
>
> I just meant that we use the French phrase instead of the Latin for that
> thought.
>
sorry I didn't get that. I thought you meant that it was not uncommon. 
So that is why I was happy with the answer.

We are not born with six, but most of us have in the education system 
some exposure to four languages Dutch, English, German and French. At 
least when I was young. Nowadays either German or French can apparently 
be replaced by Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Italian or Arab (why not 
chinese?) .
I have to admit I also had Latin and some ancient Greek, so that makes 
indeed 6 for me I am afraid ;)


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 22-6-2013 11:15, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> if you really want to know, I don't drink alcohol, never did and
> >> probably never will.
> >
> > A bit of it sometimes is actually healthy. (Also, things like red wine
> > have other beneficial nutrients, such as antioxidants.)

> I think that sort of implicitly implies that you think you know why I 
> don't drink, quod non*.

To write it in such long-winded manner and with such an emphasis as
"I don't drink alcohol, never did and probably never will" gives the
strong impression that it's not simply a question of pure indifference,
and never having drinked being just how things came to be rather than it
having been a conscious decision.

It gives the impression that you have made a decision why you "don't drink
and probably never will." That it's a conscious choice.

What I have found is that most people who have made the choice and avoid
it as a matter of principle do not have all their facts straight. It's
more akin to "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
touch a knife and never will."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 22/06/2013 1:03 PM, andrel wrote:

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Au contraire. ;-)
>>>
>>> Fabelhaft
>>>
>>
>> I am not going head to head with a Nederlander. It seems to me that you
>> are all born speaking six languages. ;-)
>>
>> I just meant that we use the French phrase instead of the Latin for that
>> thought.
>>
> sorry I didn't get that. I thought you meant that it was not uncommon.
> So that is why I was happy with the answer.
>

My fault, it was ambiguous with what I quoted. The subject was not obvious.

> We are not born with six, but most of us have in the education system
> some exposure to four languages Dutch, English, German and French. At
> least when I was young. Nowadays either German or French can apparently
> be replaced by Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Italian or Arab (why not
> chinese?) .

I've worked in Eindhoven and also for Royal Dutch Shell an have always 
been impressed by the general standard of Education in the Nederlands. 
The first time I encountered it was on a course in Paris. I remarked to 
my Dutch companion how bad the tourist soundtrack was in a lift. He 
replied that it was okay for me just hearing it one, in English. He had 
to listen to it in six languages. (Six might be an exaggeration.)

> I have to admit I also had Latin and some ancient Greek, so that makes
> indeed 6 for me I am afraid ;)
>
>

No! Six was not an exaggeration, then. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> Cite your sources :-P
>>> Not xkcd, this time I hope?
>>
>> The Discovery Channel. (Hence, it must be true...)
>
> I accept that. (It was in colour, I presume?)

Yeah. I don't recall the exact program, but they were on some tropical 
island that has monkeys - and tourists. They showed you how the monkeys 
like to sneak in and drink the booze that the tourists didn't drink. (Or 
maybe just didn't drink YET; they're cheeky monkeys...)

Some of these monkeys were clearly addicted to the stuff. Others were 
completely uninterested. A team of scientists were studying this 
phenomenon, because - they claimed - the percentages matched human 
populations, which they found rather exciting.

I wonder if they ever concluded their research?

Also, did they use a chi-squared test, or a G-test?

Post a reply to this message

On 22-6-2013 14:20, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 22-6-2013 11:15, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> if you really want to know, I don't drink alcohol, never did and
>>>> probably never will.
>>>
>>> A bit of it sometimes is actually healthy. (Also, things like red wine
>>> have other beneficial nutrients, such as antioxidants.)
>
>> I think that sort of implicitly implies that you think you know why I
>> don't drink, quod non*.
>
> To write it in such long-winded manner and with such an emphasis as
> "I don't drink alcohol, never did and probably never will" gives the
> strong impression that it's not simply a question of pure indifference,
> and never having drinked being just how things came to be rather than it
> having been a conscious decision.

That is not emphasis, just matter of fact.

> It gives the impression that you have made a decision why you "don't drink
> and probably never will." That it's a conscious choice.

One explanation is that I was such a loner at the age when most kids 
start that I did not have enough peer pressure. That none of my parent 
did drink during my childhood might also have been a factor.
I am too old now to change my habits (and it taste horrible).
[ok, that is not the full story but it will have to do for you].

> What I have found is that most people who have made the choice and avoid
> it as a matter of principle do not have all their facts straight. It's
> more akin to "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
> touch a knife and never will."

There was a large teetotaller movement in the first half of the last 
century (and before) in the Netherlands and elsewhere. One of the 
reasons given (e.g. by my father) was that many poor families were 
starving because the men drank all the money. That is still a big 
problem in many parts of the world.
My old boss was a teetotaller too. He lost many friends during the war 
because of people telling too much under influence.
None of these reasons have anything to do with why I don't drink (except 
indirectly via my father) but I don't think you can in general say that 
these people didn't have their facts straight.

Alcohol itself is seldom a problem, the combination of alcohol, poverty, 
and a male dominant society is. As is the combination of alcohol, a war, 
and a resistance movement. Not to mention the combination of alcohol, 
fast cars, and brick walls.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > What I have found is that most people who have made the choice and avoid
> > it as a matter of principle do not have all their facts straight. It's
> > more akin to "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
> > touch a knife and never will."

> There was a large teetotaller movement in the first half of the last 
> century (and before) in the Netherlands and elsewhere. One of the 
> reasons given (e.g. by my father) was that many poor families were 
> starving because the men drank all the money. That is still a big 
> problem in many parts of the world.
> My old boss was a teetotaller too. He lost many friends during the war 
> because of people telling too much under influence.

In other words, "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
touch a knife and never will."

It's a false dichotomy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 22/06/2013 6:53 PM, Warp wrote:
 > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
 >
 >> There was a large teetotaller movement in the first half of the last
 >> century (and before) in the Netherlands and elsewhere. One of the
 >> reasons given (e.g. by my father) was that many poor families were
 >> starving because the men drank all the money. That is still a big
 >> problem in many parts of the world.
 >> My old boss was a teetotaller too. He lost many friends during the war
 >> because of people telling too much under influence.
 >
 > In other words, "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
 > touch a knife and never will."
 >

Bad show! Old Chap.

That is not what Andrel said. It was what his old boss may have given as 
a reason for not drinking. Many people use statements like that when 
people try to force them to drink. They feel under pressure to justify 
themselves.

IMO one should ever force anyone to take poisonous substances. Or imply 
that there is something wrong with them if they don't.


 > It's a false dichotomy.
 >

It is a poor reading by you of human nature.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 22/06/2013 6:53 PM, Warp wrote:
>  > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>  >
>  >> There was a large teetotaller movement in the first half of the last
>  >> century (and before) in the Netherlands and elsewhere. One of the
>  >> reasons given (e.g. by my father) was that many poor families were
>  >> starving because the men drank all the money. That is still a big
>  >> problem in many parts of the world.
>  >> My old boss was a teetotaller too. He lost many friends during the war
>  >> because of people telling too much under influence.
>  >
>  > In other words, "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
>  > touch a knife and never will."
>  >

> Bad show! Old Chap.

> That is not what Andrel said.

I know. I was referring to the arguments of those other people. It's the
fallacious "thing X *can* be used in harmful ways, therefore I won't even
touch it" principle. If you used the same principle with everything, you
would actually die because you couldn't do anything at all, not even eat
food or dring water. You couldn't drive cars, you couldn't handle any
kind of tools, you couldn't handle money, nothing.

> IMO one should ever force anyone to take poisonous substances.

Who's talking about forcing anybody to do anything? I was talking about
people using the wrong, uninformed reasons to avoid something.

As for "poisonous substances", everything is poisonous if you take it
too much. You die from drinking too much water (it's even called "water
poisoning"). You will die a horrible death by poisoning if you take too
much vitamin A.

That doesn't mean that those substances are in any way dangerous or
unhealthy in proper amounts.

Perhaps you missed the "small amounts of alcohol from time to time can
actually have health benefits" part.

> Or imply that there is something wrong with them if they don't.

I think it's wrong if they do it for the wrong, misinformed reasons.

>  > It's a false dichotomy.

> It is a poor reading by you of human nature.

It is quite a perfect example of false dichotomy. They seem to think that
there are only two options: Either complete abstinence, or pathological
alcoholism, killing yourself and others by excessive drinking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 22-6-2013 19:53, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> What I have found is that most people who have made the choice and avoid
>>> it as a matter of principle do not have all their facts straight. It's
>>> more akin to "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
>>> touch a knife and never will."
>
>> There was a large teetotaller movement in the first half of the last
>> century (and before) in the Netherlands and elsewhere. One of the
>> reasons given (e.g. by my father) was that many poor families were
>> starving because the men drank all the money. That is still a big
>> problem in many parts of the world.
>> My old boss was a teetotaller too. He lost many friends during the war
>> because of people telling too much under influence.
>
> In other words, "knives are being used to kill people, therefore I never
> touch a knife and never will."

No, simply, "I know what the consequences *can* be if I do. I do not 
want to do anything that might endanger any of my friends/family"
The problem with your point of view is that you totally fail to take 
into account that use of alcohol inhibits your ability to judge the 
situation. You assume that in every situation you can say "no I don't 
want another beer for reasons I am not going to tell you". Well, you 
can't, because it would offend your companion (and is highly suspicious 
in wartime) and because of having had those other beers before that. 
What you can say is "no, I don't drink". People get used to that and 
respect it if you give a reason, and even if you don't. In fact I seldom 
give a reason.
Note that my boss never tried to convert anybody to his point of view, 
he simply matter of fact explained why he didn't drink. Ok he did not 
serve alcohol at his parties. That was fine by me.

> It's a false dichotomy.

Nope, yours is an invalid metaphor. In fact you can even make a case 
that it should read "knives can be used to kill people, therefore I 
don't drink and I never will". I.e if you know you might be carrying a 
knife into a bar, because it is so useful for other reasons.

Perhaps if I could sing it like Niamh Parsons I might get the message 
across. [I know I probably should not have included the attachment, but 
I can't find a legal free source on the net. OTOH posts expire on this 
NG and it should not be indexed by bots. Yet, if anyone of you that is 
partial to some sentimentality sometimes, would buy this or 'the old 
simplicity' I would feel even a bit more sure that I prevented a record 
company to shoot in it's own foot].


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '05-no half measures.mp3.dat' (4775 KB)

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The problem with your point of view is that you totally fail to take 
> into account that use of alcohol inhibits your ability to judge the 
> situation.

Still with the false dichotomy. Either you don't drink at all, or you
drink so much that it inhibits your judgment. There's no in-between.

This is precisely the reason why it irks me when people say that they
don't drink and never will. They always have these false notions that
it's either-or.

And because you will misinterpret the above statement, let me explain in
more detail: It doesn't bother me in any way if someone doesn't drink
alcohol at all. Heck, the last time *I* drinked any alcoholic beverage
was probably over a year ago. The reason I don't drink almost anything
at all is because I just don't like the taste of almost any such beverage.
(Perhaps the alcoholic beverage that I find the least awful is white wine,
and even that depends a lot on the wine. And wine is quite expensive here
so there isn't a lot of motivation for me to be bying it.)

No, what bothers me is the extremely common wrong reasons why many people
are complete absolutists. They present all these false dichotomies and
hasty generalizations.

If you don't want to drink then don't. That's fine. Just don't use
fallacious logic to argue for it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message