That’s like saying that the best way to reduce harm from alcohol is to make good strong alcohol cheap so people wouldn’t drink eau-de-cologne and denaturate.
Problems with alcohol are not limited to it sometimes being mixed with poison.
Problems with cocaine didn’t start with it becoming illegal.
Let’s please not talk as if it’s normal to consume it.
You brought quite a lot of things together, and I’d say they should be addressed separately if you want to get your message across.
On my part, for example - USSR wasn’t holy, but its demise instead of improvement is a giant tradegy that still negatively echoes in the world history.
Someone else would say there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, for example.
Some would point out folk medicine is not all entirely wrong even by medical science standards and it becomes a problem when patients ignore science in favor of unproven methods.
And at the end of it, you end up with the comment that is half wrong, and the message poorly sent.
On my part, for example - USSR wasn’t holy, but its demise instead of improvement is a giant tradegy that still negatively echoes in the world history.
I agree, but that’s not the position I described.
Someone else would say there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, for example.
Definitely better than alcoholism.
Some would point out folk medicine is not all entirely wrong even by medical science standards and it becomes a problem when patients ignore science in favor of unproven methods.
The latter is what I meant exactly.
And at the end of it, you end up with the comment that is half wrong, and the message poorly sent.
That depends on reader’s interpretation, so you are basically ascribing your own choices to me. If something isn’t clear, it doesn’t mean you can pick the wrong variant and ascribe it to author of that comment. It just means you can ask.
My point wasn’t about the content of statements, but about how such wide statements going way beyond original question will inevitably cause conflict and will drive your point across less effectively.
That’s like saying that the best way to reduce harm from alcohol is to make good strong alcohol cheap so people wouldn’t drink eau-de-cologne and denaturate.
Problems with alcohol are not limited to it sometimes being mixed with poison.
Problems with cocaine didn’t start with it becoming illegal.
Let’s please not talk as if it’s normal to consume it.
EDIT: That said, I do sometimes consume alcohol.
You’d be surprised.
Let’s put it this way:
I have a few relatives believing in folk medicine,
a few other relatives believing in good holy USSR unfairly taken from us by evil fate,
a friend believing in esoterics,
a friend and a relative with alcoholism problems,
an acquaintance doing prostitution,
and some acquaintances believing in Russian neo-paganism (very far from actual Russian paganism) with all the history freakery attached,
and probably I’d know some blowing coke if it weren’t a thing best kept secret here due to inhumane laws.
That doesn’t mean any of those things are normal.
I mean a surprising amount of people use coke recreationally, even those you wouldn’t expect it from.
Personally I find it weird how many more people do coke than smoke weed.
Alcoholism is pretty normal in some countries.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country
I think you two define normal differently
Author: normal = acceptable
You: normal = common
I meant “acceptably healthy” by “normal”.
Huh. You did a pretty good job destroying your own argument, its not often where I agree with someone before they convince me theyre wrong
You brought quite a lot of things together, and I’d say they should be addressed separately if you want to get your message across.
On my part, for example - USSR wasn’t holy, but its demise instead of improvement is a giant tradegy that still negatively echoes in the world history.
Someone else would say there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, for example.
Some would point out folk medicine is not all entirely wrong even by medical science standards and it becomes a problem when patients ignore science in favor of unproven methods.
And at the end of it, you end up with the comment that is half wrong, and the message poorly sent.
That’s just my 2 cents here.
I agree, but that’s not the position I described.
Definitely better than alcoholism.
The latter is what I meant exactly.
That depends on reader’s interpretation, so you are basically ascribing your own choices to me. If something isn’t clear, it doesn’t mean you can pick the wrong variant and ascribe it to author of that comment. It just means you can ask.
My point wasn’t about the content of statements, but about how such wide statements going way beyond original question will inevitably cause conflict and will drive your point across less effectively.
Ah, well, it wasn’t my intention to persuade anyone or drive anyone to my side.
Alcohol IS a poison…
Yes, I meant dedicated poison.