@Diana and Lynn: again, I would recommend attending an AA meeting before espousing the “healthy” affects of alcohol and recommending that any amount is good for you.
Random thought: Let’s say crack cocaine had a 1% chance of curing cancer if taken in small amounts over 40 years. Would you recommend it for health reasons?
My point is: whatever “small” benefit may exist, the “large” detrimental effect far outweighs it.
Why are you pissing on this thread? I’m afraid my keyboard will suffer a short.
If you have read my posts, I have obviously attended an AA meeting.
Missed the edit…something shiny.
I voted for truth serum. Alcohol consumption does definitely affect your thought process, and not always for the better. (15 year bartender, 30 year imbiber.)
And Superhal, don’t preach to me. I’m an unapologetic beer drinker, not an alcoholic - no, I’m not in denial - and, just like everyone else, I’m going to die from something, no matter how attentive I am to my health.
I’m not preaching to you. I’m saying: a small health benefit vs a large health detriment should be taken into consideration before recommending the small benefit.
Again, if you had read the actual posts you would realize that I’m not preaching to you, and very likely I have no idea who you are nor care what you do with your life.
My purpose is to dispel rumors about the supposed “benefits” of alcohol that definitely lead to destructive behavior.
I actually have been reading the actual posts, and the question posed by Time Like Tears**** has nothing to do with the health benefits or lack thereof of alcohol. In addition, I am not espousing the health benefits of alcohol. I get the distinct impression that you may be harboring some alcohol-related issues, and they may be causing you to travel off the topic of the original post.
And, since I can’t resist a bit of snark myself, I have to say that my being affected by the lack of concern with who I am by an anonymous Internet poster will not affect my sleep.
Sigh. Ok. Read it again, and note that I am addressing Diana and Lynn, which makes me totally ignore the content of your comments.
If you wish to flame me, please do so accurately.
Obviously, which is why I address your lack of reading ability, not your content.
DUH!!!
Neither will I.
I never said that it’s “good for you”, I said that in moderate amounts, it’s not bad for you. Unless, of course, you’re an alcoholic. And I don’t need to attend an AA meeting to understand the dangers of alcohol, they’re fairly well known.
We get it. You’re mad at the booze. But your anger is misplaced.
Fine. You have issues with people who drink, and I evidently have issues with people who have issues with people who drink. One of the reasons I’ve remained single for many years is to avoid these petty, stupid disputes. I do not have a problem with reading comprehension, I was trying to point out that this thread was being derailed from its original intention. If you’ll muster the courtesy to excuse me for being defensive, I’ll do the same.
Hmm. So your first argument contradicts your second argument? Is it good for you or bad for you?
I’m being facetious, but seriously, alcohol has more bad effects than good effects.
Good luck using the straw man argument against me. Regardless of my experiences with alcohol, the bad far outweighs the good, and I’ll stand by that.
No I don’t. I have issues with people who recommend drinking because of the Y% benefit yet ignore the 1000 x Y% tragedy.
In regards to the OP, my stance is related to the illusionary “harmless” effects of alcohol vs the truth in its harmful effects.
It’s neutral. I promise you this isn’t a difficult concept to wrap your mind around, if you’re wiling to just consider for a moment that your experiences aren’t universal.
I know what a strawman argument is, dear. Better than you do, apparently. And I’ll stand by my opinion that your experiences with alcohol render you incapable of seeing that alcohol is neutral, and my argument that your experiences are not especially enlightening or relevant to moderate drinkers.
I would argue that the negative effects of alcohol are universal. I won’t post stats, but drunk driving and alcohol-related domestic violence are universal.
Again, I would recommend attending an AA meeting to see how alcohol is not neutral, and to hear about the amount of pain it causes.
I have nothing against so-called moderate drinkers, who may or may not have control over their consumption.
What I disagree with is recommending alcohol for some pathetically small benefit where the detriment far outweighs the benefit by several thousand percent.
Why do I feel like I’m beating my head up against a wall? **I don’t recommend drinking.**But, you really come across as someone who is a teetotaler. Some studies have shown, much to your chagrin (I’m sure), that moderate alcohol consumption is very possibly of benefit to one’s health. No, I’m not providing cites…you can Google it yourself. Tragedy does not ensue for the majority of people who partake of alcohol (no, no cite there, either). Your mathematical extrapolation is in the extreme. Chill.
Perhaps you should, if you’re going to keep insisting that. And not just about drunk driving (um… clearly all drunk drivers are drunk) and domestic violence (and just as clearly, not all violent people are drinkers), but about your alleged long term health implications of MODERATE drinking.
And again, I’ll remind you that witnessing belongs in GD.
DianaG, I think we may be beating a dead horse here. Even so, I’m trying to watch your back.
Because you jumped into a discussion without understanding what the discussion is about?
ps. I feel the same way.
Nope. You actually attacked me for something you were misinformed about. If you would like to start a discussion about drinking, I would be happy to participate.
Again, the straw man. Rather than attack me, attack my argument: the benefits of alcohol are far outweighed by the damage it causes.
Sigh. Ok, rather than post all the stats about say drunk driving, I’ll just say this: how many people do you know who have been saved by alcohol vs the number that have been killed?
Again, (referring to banging one’s head against a wall) I didn’t start your argument. I’m just answering your comments. I never addressed your views on drinking, alcoholism, or even the OP’s original intent. That you are bringing these up now simply proves that you didn’t read any posts, even your own.
To sum up my discussion with you:
- You attacked me for something I didn’t do.
- I addressed your grievances.
- You attacked me for new things I didn’t do.
- I addressed those.
- It appears you want to win an argument through any means necessary.
- #5 ain’t gonna happen, sorry, unless you can overcome my basic argument (recommending alcohol in any amount without understanding the pain it causes is wrong) without using rhetorical tricks.
If I did post the stats, would it make a difference?
At this point, it appears that you want to win an argument, rather than prove a point, and regardless of the stats I post, would it change that?