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

> 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.

That is completely correct for *some* people, unless there is some kind 
of physical barrier to stop you then there is always the *risk* (not the 
certainty) that you end up drinking too much. If you know that risk is 
high for yourself (or you don't know and simply don't want to find out), 
or if the consequences would be really bad, then it's completely logical 
to take the decision not to start drinking whilst sober to completely 
avoid that risk.

> Many people just appreciate the taste of fine wine or other beverages,
> and they do not feel any temptation to drink it in excess.

Nobody is disagreeing with you there.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 22-6-2013 13:42, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Random fact of the day: The percentage of monkeys who are tee-total is
>>> identical to the percentage of humans...
>>
>> Cite your sources :-P
>> Not xkcd, this time I hope?
>
> The Discovery Channel. (Hence, it must be true...)

almost but no cigar. And you probably saw it on cheezburger.
Or did someone from here post it there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pSm7BcQHWXk

-- 
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

>> The Discovery Channel. (Hence, it must be true...)
>
> almost but no cigar. And you probably saw it on cheezburger.
> Or did someone from here post it there?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pSm7BcQHWXk

That's the video. And no, I saw it on TV. I just wasn't sure exactly 
what program or which channel...

Post a reply to this message

On 25-6-2013 9:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The Discovery Channel. (Hence, it must be true...)
>>
>> almost but no cigar. And you probably saw it on cheezburger.
>> Or did someone from here post it there?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pSm7BcQHWXk
>
> That's the video. And no, I saw it on TV. I just wasn't sure exactly
> what program or which channel...

Interesting, it is a video from some time ago and a link to it appeared 
around the time you mentioned it on cheezburger, possibly even a day later.


-- 
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

>> That's the video. And no, I saw it on TV. I just wasn't sure exactly
>> what program or which channel...
>
> Interesting, it is a video from some time ago and a link to it appeared
> around the time you mentioned it on cheezburger, possibly even a day later.

I saw it on TV several years ago. I only just remembered it now...

Post a reply to this message