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

On 23-6-2013 11:11, Warp wrote:
> 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 my last time trying to explain it friendly: it is not a false 
dichotomy and your arguments are bullshit.

For most people alcohol slowly impairs their judgement, when they start 
drinking it becomes harder to not take the next one. So it is not a 
dichotomy between none and too much but, excuse the phrase, a slippery 
slope. And one whose slipperyness suffers from positive feedback. I am 
not saying that everybody all the time gets drunk whenever they take one 
beer. Just that for most people there are certain circumstances where 
they take one too many. Even if they knew that they should not have done 
that when they still had a few less.
The number of alcohol consumptions one takes in one session has a 
distribution. In most cases there is a peak at 2 or 3. But there is a 
tail. And that tail is larger than what you know is good for you when 
you are sober. Most people stop before it is too late most of the time. 
The problem is that nobody knows how likely it is that they step on the 
tail*. And if you realize that there is a true dichotomy: not drinking 
at all or gambling with yourself. I don't care if you think it won't 
happen to you and all the other people are losers. Because your ill 
informed opinion does not invalidate their reasoning.

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

If you had read what I wrote and not read what you think somebody like 
me should write, then you would have noticed that this reasoning is not 
even the reason I don't drink. You started this whole issue by stating 
it is a logical discussion and everybody with an opinion different from 
yours is wrong. Consult your book on logic fallacies on how many you 
have made in this discussion. I can name at least 2 or 3.

*) except those who already have crossed the line too many times. As 
usual they are the most vocal. And possibly rightly so. I have seen some 
of those people who stopped for this reason and took one beer because 
they were among good friends.



-- 
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:
> This is my last time trying to explain it friendly: it is not a false 
> dichotomy and your arguments are bullshit.

> For most people alcohol slowly impairs their judgement, when they start 
> drinking it becomes harder to not take the next one. So it is not a 
> dichotomy between none and too much but, excuse the phrase, a slippery 
> slope. And one whose slipperyness suffers from positive feedback. I am 
> not saying that everybody all the time gets drunk whenever they take one 
> beer. Just that for most people there are certain circumstances where 
> they take one too many. Even if they knew that they should not have done 
> that when they still had a few less.

You say it's not a false dichotomy, yet you keep repeating the false
dichotomy over and over.

The argument you are preseting is: "Many people choose to avoid alcohol
completely because most people can't control their drinking." In other
words, they seem to think that there are only two options: Either you
avoid alcohol completely, or you risk going out of control.

However, there is a third option, and one that's practiced by millions
of people worldwide (especially in those cultures where wine is a very
common meal drink): Just drink a very small amount of it, and that's it.
It doesn't even have to have any kind of effect on your senses.

Many people just appreciate the taste of fine wine or other beverages,
and they do not feel any temptation to drink it in excess. And small
amounts of alcohol from time to time has actually been shown to have
health benefits (not to talk about the beneficial nutrients found in
drinks like red wine, which contain things like antioxidants and
flavonoids.)

I find your argument to be quite insulting to people who appreciate
these beverages yet never drink it to an excess. You are, when we go
to the bottom of it, calling them drunkards.

If anything, I call that bullshit.

As said, if you don't want to drink any alcohol, that's completely fine.
But don't go around making bullshit claims about people who are not like
you.

(And I'm not saying this because I drink regularly, because I don't.
In my case it's a question of taste, not a question of principles or
unfounded fear. But I'm not a 100% absolutist either. And I most certainly
don't go around misrepresenting the issue.)

> You started this whole issue by stating 
> it is a logical discussion and everybody with an opinion different from 
> yours is wrong.

Ah, there we go putting words in other people's mouths. Of course.
What a mature conversational tactic.

"You disagree with me, therefore you think that everybody with an opinion
different from yours is wrong."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23-6-2013 14:23, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> This is my last time trying to explain it friendly: it is not a false
>> dichotomy and your arguments are bullshit.
>
>> For most people alcohol slowly impairs their judgement, when they start
>> drinking it becomes harder to not take the next one. So it is not a
>> dichotomy between none and too much but, excuse the phrase, a slippery
>> slope. And one whose slipperyness suffers from positive feedback. I am
>> not saying that everybody all the time gets drunk whenever they take one
>> beer. Just that for most people there are certain circumstances where
>> they take one too many. Even if they knew that they should not have done
>> that when they still had a few less.
>
> You say it's not a false dichotomy, yet you keep repeating the false
> dichotomy over and over.
>
> The argument you are preseting is: "Many people choose to avoid alcohol
> completely because most people can't control their drinking."

No, they do because they know or fear that it may put them in a position 
where they might not control themselves. There is a huge gap between 
their uncertainty and your statement that it is a certainty. Technically 
this is known as a straw-man's argument.

>  In other
> words, they seem to think that there are only two options: Either you
> avoid alcohol completely, or you risk going out of control.

Some people know or assume for themselves that they are prone to this 
risk, yes. Others don't want to take changes. Still others think that 
they should not do what they would advise others not to. But it is all 
their decision, not mine or yours. And as you correctly state below, 
many people take another decision.

> However, there is a third option, and one that's practiced by millions
> of people worldwide (especially in those cultures where wine is a very
> common meal drink): Just drink a very small amount of it, and that's it.
> It doesn't even have to have any kind of effect on your senses.

I know, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps except for the 
fact that the friends that my boss lost were by alcohol-induced talking 
by people who were sure they were practising your third option. But that 
was in WWII.

> Many people just appreciate the taste of fine wine or other beverages,
> and they do not feel any temptation to drink it in excess. And small
> amounts of alcohol from time to time has actually been shown to have
> health benefits (not to talk about the beneficial nutrients found in
> drinks like red wine, which contain things like antioxidants and
> flavonoids.)

True, but irrelevant.

> I find your argument to be quite insulting to people who appreciate
> these beverages yet never drink it to an excess.

Well, perhaps you should read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

> You are, when we go
> to the bottom of it,

Raising another straw-man ...

> calling them drunkards.

... (yes, there we go)

> If anything, I call that bullshit.

... and there we have the straw-man's argument.
Good on you, very mature.

> As said, if you don't want to drink any alcohol, that's completely fine.
> But don't go around making bullshit claims about people who are not like
> you.

You keep missing the fact that none of this is why I don't drink. I am 
not making claims about people who are not like me. That is you, 
remember? You are the one that claims that everybody that does not drink 
does that because they can't think straight.

> (And I'm not saying this because I drink regularly, because I don't.
> In my case it's a question of taste, not a question of principles or
> unfounded fear. But I'm not a 100% absolutist either. And I most certainly
> don't go around misrepresenting the issue.)


>> You started this whole issue by stating
>> it is a logical discussion and everybody with an opinion different from
>> yours is wrong.
>
> Ah, there we go putting words in other people's mouths.

May I quote 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." Ok, I admit I exaggerated, you are not claiming that 
everybody is wrong, just most.

>  Of course.
> What a mature conversational tactic.

Then why are you putting words in my mouth?
Matthew 7:3

> "You disagree with me, therefore you think that everybody with an opinion
> different from yours is wrong."

I can't even parse that. From the quotes I assume you are setting up yet 
another straw-man, but that is as far as I can make it.


-- 
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:
> Raising another straw-man ...

I don't think you fully understand what a straw-man argument actually is.
You seem to be using the term just as a generic "you are committing an
argumentative fallacy with a known name" card.

(And now you will probably respond to this by an infantile "but you did
that too!" argument referring to my use of the term "false dichotomy",
even though I explained why this is one.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23-6-2013 17:56, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Raising another straw-man ...
>
> I don't think you fully understand what a straw-man argument actually is.
> You seem to be using the term just as a generic "you are committing an
> argumentative fallacy with a known name" card.

nope, I am using it for those instances where you put something in my 
mouth that I did not say and attack that.
Where I wrote that, you were precisely going to do that. So it is pretty 
clear that I do know what a straw man is.

>
> (And now you will probably respond to this by an infantile "but you did
> that too!" argument referring to my use of the term "false dichotomy",
> even though I explained why this is one.)
>
nope, I understand what a false dichotomy is. And you used the term 
correct. It is just that I never claimed that there are only two 
options, so technically your use of 'false dichotomy' was also a straw 
man's argument. ;)

-- 
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