Alcohol is a hard drug

[NikolaiI]

Tip 269. Don't drink alcohol. It's everywhere in our society, but in my experience I learned it's not a good thing. I see my friends drink and see how it affects them negatively. Our society pressures us to drink, it does, in so many ways; and it makes it seem normal, sociable, acceptable, preferable, but the fact is that alcohol is a hard drug. It's better not to do any hard drugs, including alcohol, in my opinion - however unpopular that opinion may be.

It's better for the body and mind not to drink alcohol. . . I know how enticing it is, and how much pressure there is to drink. It took me many years to get to the point where I understand myself well enough to just never drink. It's more important to me to know myself, to know the world, with a clear mind. . . and to experience life as fully as possible. I see my friends resort to alcohol sometimes to solve their problems, and I see that negative effects occur. I wouldn't have been able to realize this if it hadn't been for spiritual pursuit, for learning of people such as Bassui Tokushō, and so many others.

I know for people who drink, for my friends included, it is nearly impossible to reverse the view on this. I know they are reluctant to change, having accepted a position, a view on it. Once people get set in their ways they are very reluctant to change any of their views.

I personally think it is a terrible shame how the truth of so many things is covered up by our mass common wisdom. For instance, as Alan Watts points out, mescaline and LSD are medicines for the mind; if used in a purposeful way. Native Americans - bless them - knew this and it was an intrinsic part of their culture; using peyote as a way to access the inner workings of the mind, to access the spiritual world and what have you. But our society is so blind, they really have no clue. Instead they push alcohol like it is the world's clue; have fun in drunkness and oblivion. .

I'm not advocating mescaline, and if you tried it; don't use it to seek thrills because that would be abusing something. As Alan Watts said, "If you get the message, hang up the phone."

The thing is, alcohol works the same way as a hard drug, because it is one. It's a destructive chemical. It's ended many millions of lives and destroyed many millions more. I remember meeting someone named, "Whiskey," who lived under a bridge, and hardly ate anything at all, but always had a whiskey bottle with him. The poor man was hardly human and hardly had any speaking or cognitive ability whatsoever. Two of my grandparents died from it. It kills millions every year.

I am not saying it is evil. It's not. And it's not bad, certainly, if you do take it in extreme moderation. But who does? 1 in 100, if that. My point is, why mess around with a hard drug? It's not necessary to live a happy life; as evinced by the millions of Buddhists, Hindus, and others who happen to live without it. Life is what you make it - your happiness is what you make it. Everyone is responsible for their happiness, and as a side point - I see so many people unhappy about stuff that shouldn't bother them at all. Why let anything make you unhappy? Nothing should, if you realize you create your life, your world, you are the maker of it. It's all your doing.

And it's not better or worse than other hard drugs, like cocaine. If you did cocaine once or twice, but never touched it again, it would have no measurable effect on your lifetime happiness, or your ability to feel happiness. But here's the thing, if you did cocaine habitually it would destroy your brain's ability to experience happiness, to get dopamine and serotonin naturally.

I've experimented with cocaine and alcohol, but only because I was aware of its danger, and only to know what it was like. I only did it because I have complete self control in regards to what goes into my body. I have an absolutely unaddictive personality, and I know there is no possible way I could be addicted. I couldn't be addicted to cigarettes or any other substance because I don't want to, and I would never want to. To be addicted, I would have to throw myself into it, to lose myself, and that would not happen because I don't want that, it would be the worst thing in the world. I know who I am and I'll never lose that.

What I believe happens for many people, is for whatever reason; they aren't in this mind state. They don't have the control - they don't realize they have the control. They don't believe, they don't know they do. They don't know the reality of it, that they can control their actions and mind. It's a truth, you always control yourself; you are never under the control of something else. Even if you are physically addicted to cigarettes, because you chose to choke down the harsh, unpleasant buggers enough hundreds of times so your body developed a dependency, your body still reacts to your brain's signals, and your brain follows your mind's wishes.

I've gone off on a tangent - but I believe the basic thing is that people have any doubt at all in themselves. If don't have any doubt in yourself, if you truly know yourself, then nothing can weaken you. If at some point you conquer yourself, then nothing can conquer you, your mind.

If you attain peace - non-duality - then you'll know a state of consciousness that is higher than anything in the realm of duality. It is higher than any drug can take you, than cocaine or alcohol even. Realizing non-duality is like waking up from a dream, it is like turning everything inside out; it is like being released from an immeasurable time of believing you are a limited, individual, cut off and separate from the universe, to knowing that you are an unlimited existence, at one with the entire universe.

This I experienced and yet years went by before I still realized that alcohol is not a good thing, not helpful in anyway way. The universe is complex, and part of who I am is my past experiences; but where I am now, when I taste it, I realize it is poison, and unhealthy for my body. I've grown more sensitive to things like foods and drinks and anything which goes into my body. And when I drink it, my body immediately tells me it's poison, and to stop.

Ultimately - I am not saying don't drink alcohol. I am, and I am not. I know that it is negative, and that it is a poison and a hard drug, but I know that everyone has to learn this for themselves. There is nothing learned but what is self-discovered. Things have to take their natural course. But as for the evils of alcohol, spend some time with alcoholics. I think the more time you spend with alcoholics the less you will drink alcohol. And I mean those who have really suffered because of their alcoholism. Spend time with an outfit like Uplift, that drives a truck around to feed the homeless. Get to know them - most of them are good people, though a maority have different mental illnesses and alcohol and other drug problems.

But honestly - and I mean this - do what you will. As I said, things must take their natural course, for they will anyway. I'm just posting, writing thoughts, just because I feel sort of the impulse to share what I've experienced, and what I know about human happiness and suffering, and the mind and body - not with an expectation that anyone will read all of this, or understand. I know it is doubtful. But still, it is my hope that someone will consider, and benefit from my thoughts. It is my hope that someone will examine the world and themselves more carefully. Will question what is true - what is real. Where did my opinions come from? Etc. As Descartes did. Why is our society so off-rail on some things? Why is it that it's painted as a legal and safe substance, when in scientific terms it is a hard drug? And why is the reaction so strong, is it not overly so?

But in the end, I don't have any attachment to the results of my effort one way or the other. I hope people will think about what they do and why they do it. And why it is so normal to drink, and why it sounds as such a surprise that it is a hard drug, we never hear it, why we never think of it that way.

[Vonny]

This could be a really interesting thread if people would speak honestly.

You say you're not going to call it evil - oh boy, you didn't see me last Sunday night. I've been jesting about about alcohol on the "bath" thread the last couple of days, but in truth, just the idea, the thought of the smell of it, ug, I can't think of it without feeling really sick.



Why let anything make you unhappy? Nothing should, if you realize you create your life, your world, you are the maker of it. It's all your doing.

I agree with you here. When I think of this, I see the logic in it.

My worst problem, which has led to my other excesses, and desire to escape reality in different ways, is my sleep disorder, which I refer to as nightmares, but is something else... a form of "sleep terror." I feel terror every single time I wake up. Often I can't recall a dream, if there was one. Amnesia surrounds the dream. When I wake up, I don't recognize anyone or know where I am for a couple of minutes. As a child I screamed in my sleep, but I don't do that anymore. Maybe it's my karma, I don't know, but it's reached a point that I can't live with the nightly fear anymore. So I'm now trying out different psych meds to find one that works. And alcohol does not mix with them! I almost killed myself drinking last weekend!!

A very insightful post Nikolai.

[kevinthediltz]

This could be a really interesting thread if people would speak honestly.

You say you're not going to call it evil - oh boy, you didn't see me last Sunday night. I've been jesting about about alcohol on the "bath" thread the last couple of days, but in truth, just the idea, the thought of the smell of it, ug, I can't think of it without feeling really sick.




I agree with you here. When I think of this, I see the logic in it.

My worst problem, which has led to my other excesses, and desire to escape reality in different ways, is my sleep disorder, which I refer to as nightmares, but is something else... a form of "sleep terror." I feel terror every single time I wake up. Often I can't recall a dream, if there was one. Amnesia surrounds the dream. When I wake up, I don't recognize anyone or know where I am for a couple of minutes. As a child I screamed in my sleep, but I don't do that anymore. Maybe it's my karma, I don't know, but it's reached a point that I can't live with the nightly fear anymore. So I'm now trying out different psych meds to find one that works. And alcohol does not mix with them! I almost killed myself drinking last weekend!!

A very insightful post Nikolai.


First of all, that had almost nothing to do with alcohol. Just another depressing and self centering post that you seem to like to do...

Second of all, refer to my last posted poem, "Ode to alcohol," it may shed light on why some people drink.
I do not drink because it is normal. In fact, it is a rare occasion that I even drink with other people (except maybe Skib). I go through phases of liking and disliking what whiskey does to me. Honestly, I typically wake up with a headache, but feeling better about this life that I have chosen to live. That may or may not make sense.

Thirdly, in the words of Kilgore Trout, Kurt Vonnegut's alter ego, "All four of the American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature were alcoholics."
Steinbeck, Hemmingway, Faulkner, and O'Neil.

[Vonny]

refer to my last posted poem, "Ode to alcohol," it may shed light

:seeya: No thanks. I'll read Nik.

[NikolaiI]

First of all, that had almost nothing to do with alcohol. Just another depressing and self centering post that you seem to like to do...

That's harsh and unkind dude. Seriously, no need to be harsh an unkind.

For the record, I don't with what you said at all there.


Second of all, refer to my last posted poem, "Ode to alcohol," it may shed light on why some people drink.
I do not drink because it is normal. In fact, it is a rare occasion that I even drink with other people (except maybe Skib). I go through phases of liking and disliking what whiskey does to me. Honestly, I typically wake up with a headache, but feeling better about this life that I have chosen to live. That may or may not make sense.

Thirdly, in the words of Kilgore Trout, Kurt Vonnegut's alter ego, "All four of the American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature were alcoholics."
Steinbeck, Hemmingway, Faulkner, and O'Neil.

[Vonny]

That's harsh and unkind dude. Seriously, no need to be harsh an unkind.


I'm giving up alcohol, he helped convince me a little more.

There has to be a contrast in life of nice people and mean people, of summer and winter, of suffering and joy, of being sick from too much alcohol and experiencing blessed soberness, or we can't fully appreciate the best there is. We have to be able to compare.

[kevinthediltz]

For the record, I am not drunk, or in fact had a drink in many days.
That was not meant to be harsh or unkind, just observant. I call them like I see them, as they say. If I offended, I apologize. It was not my intent.

Kurt Vonnegut made the point, that the four American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, were drunks. Vonnegut believed that a drunk had something to give to the world. I am still not sure if I agree, but he has a point. 5 of my personal favorite authors were alcoholics.

[NikolaiI]

Second of all, refer to my last posted poem, "Ode to alcohol," it may shed light on why some people drink.
I do not drink because it is normal. In fact, it is a rare occasion that I even drink with other people (except maybe Skib). I go through phases of liking and disliking what whiskey does to me. Honestly, I typically wake up with a headache, but feeling better about this life that I have chosen to live. That may or may not make sense.

Thirdly, in the words of Kilgore Trout, Kurt Vonnegut's alter ego, "All four of the American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature were alcoholics."
Steinbeck, Hemmingway, Faulkner, and O'Neil.

Your thirdly somewhat contradicts your secondly. So you don't do it to be normal, but by your implication, you do it partly because they do; or at least, you wouldn't have mentioned them for no reason. In any case, things are either true or not - in and of themselves.

Also, Thich Nhat Hanh would never touch a drop of alcohol. So actually I use a similar argument (only in a small part). Thay (Hanh), the zen masters Bassui Tokusho; Bankei Yotaku; Hakuun Yasutani, all followed very strictly the Buddhist injunction against alcohol. You say you don't drink because it's "normal," but I can't say that I can easily take that on face value. You seem obviously influenced by the fact that, as you say, the four American winners for the Nobel Prize in literature were alcoholics. Some of them or all of them were probably smokers too, that doesn't mean that smoking makes you happy or healthier in any way, does it?


For the record, I am not drunk, or in fact had a drink in many days.
That was not meant to be harsh or unkind, just observant. I call them like I see them, as they say. If I offended, I apologize. It was not my intent.

Kurt Vonnegut made the point, that the four American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, were drunks. Vonnegut believed that a drunk had something to give to the world. I am still not sure if I agree, but he has a point. 5 of my personal favorite authors were alcoholics.

So? Good gracious man, several of my favorite musicians - whom I dearly love - died of drugs and alcohol. That doesn't keep me from knowing that it's a way I don't want to die!


This could be a really interesting thread if people would speak honestly.

You say you're not going to call it evil - oh boy, you didn't see me last Sunday night. I've been jesting about about alcohol on the "bath" thread the last couple of days, but in truth, just the idea, the thought of the smell of it, ug, I can't think of it without feeling really sick.

I agree with you here. When I think of this, I see the logic in it.

: P

Yeah - that concept, that we create our universe, is one that I have come back to hundreds of times, and examined many, many times. . . It's one of the most helpful I've ever found for figuring life out.


My worst problem, which has led to my other excesses, and desire to escape reality in different ways, is my sleep disorder, which I refer to as nightmares, but is something else... a form of "sleep terror." I feel terror every single time I wake up. Often I can't recall a dream, if there was one. Amnesia surrounds the dream. When I wake up, I don't recognize anyone or know where I am for a couple of minutes. As a child I screamed in my sleep, but I don't do that anymore. Maybe it's my karma, I don't know, but it's reached a point that I can't live with the nightly fear anymore. So I'm now trying out different psych meds to find one that works. And alcohol does not mix with them! I almost killed myself drinking last weekend!!

A very insightful post Nikolai.

This is very significant to me. It's a very personal thing to share and obviously said in trust of the honesty and goodness to those who receive it. I can only sympathize and say that I very, very much wish that one day this will be nothing more than a very distant memory. I am confident and sure that in time none of those will happen anymore. I really don't know what to say except I very much wish this. I can only imagine what it's like, my friend. I have had a night terror only once or twice in my life. . to be truthful, well, you read my blog about my dreams. But I had one night terror before, so I know what one is like, but I wouldn't be able to guess what having them always is like.

And thanks, I'm glad you thought so :]

[kevinthediltz]

So? Good gracious man, several of my favorite musicians - whom I dearly love - died of drugs and alcohol. That doesn't keep me from knowing that it's a way I don't want to die!

Just replying to Vonny's post.

I do not wish to die of drugs or alcohol. I do, however, believe that Vonnegut had a point. That an alcoholic has something to give to the world that most do not. A drunk sees the world in a different way. Darker, perhaps. I think that we need both sides to keep a level view of the world.

I am not trying to argue that alcohol is in fact a hard drug. In fact, I agree that it is.

[Vonny]

Thank you so much Nikolai.

Someday it will be a distant memory.

It's wonderful people like you that makes life wonderful.

Reading about all of your great dreams was really inspiring. I'm going to have those someday - without psych meds, and certainly without alcohol!

Thanks so much for all of your writings!

(I'll just add - night terror is the closest diagnosis I can get. They usually happen occasionally in other people, but I have some degree of it every time I wake up. Anyway, I will beat it! :) )

[NikolaiI]

Thank you so much Nikolai.

Someday it will be a distant memory.

It's wonderful people like you that makes life wonderful.

Reading about all of your great dreams was really inspiring. I'm going to have those someday - without psych meds, and certainly without alcohol!

Thanks so much for all of your writings!

(I'll just add - night terror is the closest diagnosis I can get. They usually happen occasionally in other people, but I have some degree of it every time I wake up. Anyway, I will beat it! :) )

You're welcome, Vonny. I'm glad you were able to take comfort in what I said. . and it really means a lot to me that you think highly of my writings. And thank you very much for the compliment; you are great too!

I definitely think you are right on target - believing you can is one of the most important things, in my view.

Thank you so very much for all the kind things you said, they really mean a lot!


For the record, I am not drunk, or in fact had a drink in many days.
That was not meant to be harsh or unkind, just observant. I call them like I see them, as they say. If I offended, I apologize. It was not my intent.

Kurt Vonnegut made the point, that the four American winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, were drunks. Vonnegut believed that a drunk had something to give to the world. I am still not sure if I agree, but he has a point. 5 of my personal favorite authors were alcoholics.

Yes. I think you've said this before, and maybe even we've had this conversation before in brief; I am not sure I know what Vonnegut's point is, exactly.

I could say the Buddha taught not to drink any alcohol, and it would be relevent, but only to me.


I do not wish to die of drugs or alcohol. I do, however, believe that Vonnegut had a point. That an alcoholic has something to give to the world that most do not. A drunk sees the world in a different way. Darker, perhaps. I think that we need both sides to keep a level view of the world.

Yes, sure. . when you said before that the drunk has something to give the world, I wanted to reply yeah, and everyone does. I agree in a sense that we need both sides in life; but only in the world as it is now, I would think.

I also wouldn't take it to mean that we need those things. . just because good can come from tragedy doesn't mean we should go find or make tragedy just to get the good from it.

[MarkBastable]

Before I commit to engaging in this one, can I be clear about our terms?

If alcohol is a hard drug, what substances fall into the category of soft - or not-hard - drugs?

[Vonny]

3 bottles of wine at a time is

un-be-liev-able :crazy:

[Scheherazade]

Before anyone commits to engaging in this debate:


~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your comments.

Off-topic and/or personal posts will be removed without further notice

as well as earning you infraction points.

~

[Vonny]

Before I commit to engaging in this one, can I be clear about our terms?

If alcohol is a hard drug, what substances fall into the category of soft - or not-hard - drugs?

A soft drug is high-fructose cornsyrup. It's addicting and you become nice and squishy on it.

[MarkBastable]

A soft drug is high-fructose cornsyrup. It's addicting and you become nice and squishy on it.

Thanks for the contribution, but as Nik's putting forward the argument, it's his definition of the terms that count.

[NikolaiI]

Before I commit to engaging in this one, can I be clear about our terms?

If alcohol is a hard drug, what substances fall into the category of soft - or not-hard - drugs?

There are assuredly differing conclusions; and certainly some people will even swear that marijuana is worse for you than alcohol, but this may be of help in clarifying terms, as you put it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg

(I tried to make the image come up but I couldn't get it to)

[Vonny]

Thanks for the contribution, but as Nik's putting forward the argument, it's his definition of the terms that count.

:leaving:

[MarkBastable]

There are assuredly differing conclusions; and certainly some people will even swear that marijuana is worse for you than alcohol, but this may be of help in clarifying terms, as you put it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean _physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_drugs

Okay - by that definition alcohol is 'borderline'. In order to avoid getting into an argument about categorisation, does it make any difference to your OP if we simply drop the 'hard/soft' bit and say that alcohol is a dangerous drug?

[NikolaiI]

Okay - by that definition alcohol is 'borderline'. In order to avoid getting into an argument about categorisation, does it make any difference to your OP if we simply drop the 'hard/soft' bit and say that alcohol is a dangerous drug?

I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe.

Here's a couple more links.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_drugs

This one puts it into the hard drug category, and a differing opinion...

http://www.addictionscience.net/HardSoftDrugs.htm

To me, this is strange and funny at the same time. And I don't exactly mean "haha" funny. It seems a bit meaningless and misleading.

It's been my understanding that alcohol is classified scientifically as a hard drug. I understand that a label or classification doesn't necessarily reveal the whole story. And I haven't put in years of study and research into the topic. Still I feel it is somewhat important to get the terms right, so let's work out the terms, I suppose, before going further. As I take it, alcohol is categorized as a hard drug, rather undisputed in the scientific community; while of course it is also undisputedly not as harmful/dangerous as cocaine or the other hard drugs. Certainly in any classifcation there is going to be one that is the least of the set that still fits in.

[MarkBastable]

I guess my point is that for the purposes of your argument (that alcohol is harmful) the categorisation doesn't matter. Or rather, it only matters if you're going to use the scientific categorisation as a support for the argument that it's harmful. In which case, the argument will become about whether it's as harmful as heroin, or less harmful than something that isn't on anyone's drug list like, I dunno, cornsyrup. Which is not, I suspect, the conversation you intended.

I agree that inherent to alcohol is a potential for harm, which is pretty much a factual thing. But I don't agree with the conclusion (and the conclusion is what you lead with) that people shouldn't drink alchohol.

Me, I think that there's a huge potential for harm in parachuting, Catholicism, open-cast mining and the Disney Channel - but I don't conclude that people shouldn't do it - although, frankly, I'd rather they opened a bottle of Pinot and enjoyed the evening sunshine.

[TheFifthElement]

Of course alcohol is a drug. So is caffeine. Our relationship with drugs as a society (certainly in the West anyway) is generally hypocritical, so it right to say that it makes no sense to permit the consumption of alcohol but not marajuana, for example.

As to whether alcohol is dangerous and harmful, I think it is the same as anything else that it is generally true if taken to excess, but in moderation it does not generally cause any permanent harm and there are circumstances where alcohol comsumption can be held to be beneficial providing, again, that this is in strict moderation. (as indicated by the French paradox). My personal view is that if you're getting drunk you've had too much, but a glass of wine or two without inducing drunkeness isn't really anything to get too concerned about.

The problem with using an Asian religious dogma as a rationale for not consuming alcohol is that it doesn't strictly import to the West. Many religious principles around diet have their roots in something more practical and therefore will be culturally significant but perhaps not universally significant (as in the case of not eating pork, for example, which may have been appropriate and sensible in a hot, North African/Middle Eastern context but makes no sense in Denmark or Norway). In the case of alcohol, approximately 50% of Asians are alcohol intolerant - they do not have a critical enzyme which breaks down alcohol in the body and so to them alcohol is, in fact, a toxin because they do not have the means to effectively deal with alcohol in their body. The same is not true of your average North European (like us Brits, brought up on beer :D) who have a higher level of alcohol tolerance. You can read about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance My question to you is how can you be sure those Buddhist masters avoided alcohol on principle and not just because it made them really sick?

[NikolaiI]

Of course alcohol is a drug. So is caffeine. Our relationship with drugs as a society (certainly in the West anyway) is generally hypocritical, so it right to say that it makes no sense to permit the consumption of alcohol but not marajuana, for example.

As to whether alcohol is dangerous and harmful, I think it is the same as anything else that it is generally true if taken to excess, but in moderation it does not generally cause any permanent harm and there are circumstances where alcohol comsumption can be held to be beneficial providing, again, that this is in strict moderation. (as indicated by the French paradox). My personal view is that if you're getting drunk you've had too much, but a glass of wine or two without inducing drunkeness isn't really anything to get too concerned about.

But is the so-called benefit one or two glasses of wine that an extremely select subsection of society enjoy worth the sum of suffering, disruption and destruction that also occurs? Just a question. For while it may not be a majority, there's still a large fraction of the population whose lives have been adversely affected, even ended by alcohol and alcohol related causes. I'm talking primarily about children who suffer parental abuse, spouses and people who die in car wrecks. Also people who lose their jobs, happiness and health, and ruin their personal lives due to drinking. All of this may be lost on people because none if it is new news - and we have perhaps become insensitized to these things. But wouldn't it be like the end of the world for you if you lost the person who matters most in the world?

Honestly, and I'm not sure why, none of the reasons I mentioned matters as much to me as a man losing himself to alcohol, like the man named Whiskey I met. Truly, how tragic is that, to lose everything - your personality, your intelligence, your humanity, all gradually, and eventually your life? I would give up ever drinking again if it would mean that never happened to anyone. I more than anyone believe that people are responsible for what happens to them but honestly that guy was a victim.

I'm not trying to emotionalize things, believe me. I'm trying to understand the world, as always. And my question is a genuine one, is it worth it? It's a question we all should ask ourselves, perhaps. Maybe it doesn't apply or is irrelevent. But I feel its worth asking.

I'm not against its exsitence in entirety. I don't believe in absolutes like that, and it seems undesirable and pointless to think that way. For me what it really comes down to, is what I observed in my personal life. How the people I actually know use it. I mean - I see my friends using it as an escape from their problems, and the effects are in my opinion disastrous. It weakens them morally and psychologically. They become less able, emotionally and intellectually. Maybe my friends are unusual, not representative of everyone. If no one used it to escape their problems, perhaps it wouldn't do these things. But I mean, all I can say, is I see it doing more harm than good.

I mean - sure you can learn something from it; you know, it's an experience to be had. But I really believe it is a hard drug, as scientifically classified, and I believe it does act upon people as other hard drugs do, albeit less than any other. I don't believe it affects everyone equally. As I say I'm not against it, but I don't like how it is whitewashed in our society into something tame and safe.


The problem with using an Asian religious dogma as a rationale for not consuming alcohol is that it doesn't strictly import to the West.

Well first of all, it's rather negative of you to call the Five Precepts in Buddhism dogma - it is a code of ethics, not dogma.
They are, in short,
1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct
4. Do not make false speech
5. Do not take intoxicants

The definition Wikipedia gives for dogma is "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers."

The difference here is that they are not held to be above dispute or doubt. Specifically, Buddhism is very much against following anything without reason. It's ineffective to follow the injunctions "Do not kill" or "Do not steal" or any of the others, if you do not understand their reason or necessity, if you feel they are imposed from the outside. It's kind of the opposite of dogma, actually. Buddha said, at one point,

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Sorry if that was an over-reaction, I just rather took exception to your remark.

Going on; the main reason for the injunction against intoxication is how it interfere's with one's mind, and a great deal has been said about this. Meditation for example becomes impossible. One of the most important things in Buddhsm is awareness, or mindfulness, and intoxication is seen as a big detriment to this.


Many religious principles around diet have their roots in something more practical and therefore will be culturally significant but perhaps not universally significant (as in the case of not eating pork, for example, which may have been appropriate and sensible in a hot, North African/Middle Eastern context but makes no sense in Denmark or Norway). In the case of alcohol, approximately 50% of Asians are alcohol intolerant - they do not have a critical enzyme which breaks down alcohol in the body and so to them alcohol is, in fact, a toxin because they do not have the means to effectively deal with alcohol in their body. The same is not true of your average North European (like us Brits, brought up on beer :D) who have a higher level of alcohol tolerance. You can read about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance My question to you is how can you be sure those Buddhist masters avoided alcohol on principle and not just because it made them really sick?

Well, they said so, so, believing them for one. In fact, as I said, a great deal has been said and written down on the subject over the millenia.

Secondly, Gautama Buddha was born in Lumpini, Nepal, not exactly East Asia as far as I know. (I say East Asia ecause of this line in the link you gave me: "An estimated one out of three people in East Asian countries have an alcohol flush reaction, colloquially known as "Asian Glow", a condition where the body cannot break down ingested alcohol completely because it lacks the genetically coded enzyme that performs this function in the bodies of drinkers with "European" tolerance levels.")

Here is an article I came across, I believe I've seen sometime previously, which bears some relevance to the conversation, and a perspective from another part of the world.

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe200103-04/gl200103-04_p21.html

[LitNetIsGreat]

Me, I think that there's a huge potential for harm in parachuting, Catholicism, open-cast mining and the Disney Channel - but I don't conclude that people shouldn't do it - although, frankly, I'd rather they opened a bottle of Pinot and enjoyed the evening sunshine.

I have to agree with the logic here, it's a similar thing as I was saying in another thread about books Vs ereaders. It's also worth noting that the biggest killer of under 25s in this country is the car...

I can certainly sympathise with the feelings of the OP, but for me there is nothing wrong with moderation, balance, 'the middle way' which is my distant lay interpretation of Buddhist thought anyway. I don't think that you can go too far wrong by taking this approach to most things.

Also, there is no way I could give up real ale. There's no way I would want to.:drool5:

[Lokasenna]

But is the so-called benefit one or two glasses of wine that an extremely select subsection of society enjoy worth the sum of suffering, disruption and destruction that also occurs? Just a question. For while it may not be a majority, there's still a large fraction of the population whose lives have been adversely affected, even ended by alcohol and alcohol related causes. I'm talking primarily about children who suffer parental abuse, spouses and people who die in car wrecks. Also people who lose their jobs, happiness and health, and ruin their personal lives due to drinking. All of this may be lost on people because none if it is new news - and we have perhaps become insensitized to these things. But wouldn't it be like the end of the world for you if you lost the person who matters most in the world?


Lots and lots of people drive cars safely, but a very small minority drive recklessly and dangerously, potentially harming themselves and others around them - should we then ban cars? After all, by your argument surely the misery of the few should outweigh the benefit of the many?

There are plenty of addictive things out there, and many of them are not even substances - gambling, for instance. I strongly believe that addiction and abuse has more to do with the personality than the object.

[Emil Miller]

The deleterious effects of drinking alcohol are obvious, but taking to drink is one of those rights of passage (forgive the cliché) that most people go through at an early stage. Perhaps the most obvious sign in the UK of degradation brought on by persistent and often excessive drinking can be seen in Wetherspoons pubs where groups of noisy and inarticulate old plonkers in baseball caps are an omnipresent warning to those who might be heading in that direction.
Also, one of the most depressing things to do is to work out just how much money you would have saved were you to have abstained from drinking, but that has to be balanced against whether one would have stayed sane without some way to offset the problems caused by that most baneful of species: homo sapiens.

[virginiawang]

It was not until lately that I became interested in the word wine, more than I ever did before. I never had an experience of drinking it, due to my health problems, but I do wish to experience the sensations described by the opium eater in his confession after he drank wine. When I read over again the paragraphs in that book about the writer’s view on wine and its effect on him or anyone who drinks, I learned a great deal about it. It is good for reasons I do not wish to disclose now. When I was really young, I had bulimia. I ate very delicious meals before I vomited everything I ate, once in a while. I did not want to gain weight, but I wanted to eat some of those delicious treats I could not eat, if I wanted to look good. Grandma taught me how to vomit without hurting my throat, at the same time keeping my hands clean by wearing plastic gloves. Grandpa once encouraged me to vomit as soon as possible after I ate too much from a box of cookies made of butter for the most part. I think it does not hurt my life and my study if I do it once in a while. Apart from that, the fact that vomiting saved my life later on after I was hinted by my doctor that my bone marrow could not produce blood on a regular level, escaped the knoweldge of modern medicine. All the other patients who suffered from this type of blood disease had to suffer from the blood in their body that made them unable to eat. They suffered more than what I wrote down here, in ways that I do not wish to put into words, for I once stayed in a Hematology ward and saw many of them. However miracles did occur to me. I didn’t suffer, because I can discharge blood.
Once I was struggling against pox and swellings under the skin of my feet, when I begged the heaven to allow blood to come out from my mouth rather than stay under my skin. It seemed as if it were heard all at once, when I spotted blood toward the end of the vomiting process one day. Since that day onward, I discharged blood on a regular basis and was led further and further away from the pitiable sight of that ward.
Oftentimes people curse the act of vomiting and adopt some very boring views like, vomiting hurts the health, leads to a bad habit, or whatever, but it is a true miracle that it saved my life. I never received transfusion or took steroids because I can discharge blood. I love me, and I am convinced that I am me, that I can discharge blood. Even the doctor wondered at this. He said nothing with an expression of real surprise. He said “good.”

[Michael T]

Perhaps the most obvious sign in the UK of degradation brought on by persistent and often excessive drinking can be seen in Wetherspoons pubs where groups of noisy and inarticulate old plonkers in baseball caps are an omnipresent warning to those who might be heading in that direction.

Amen to that! :nod:

...But also the young plonkers off their heads in every British town/city centre each weekend.

[MarkBastable]

one of those rights of passage (forgive the cliché)

You're okay - it's not a cliché.


Rites of passage - that's a cliché.

[Emil Miller]

Amen to that! :nod:

...But also the young plonkers off their heads in every British town/city centre each weekend.

It is indeed regrettable, especially as they often arrive at that state by drinking Fosters which is only marginally stronger than water. For anyone who has an aversion to pop music, Wetherspoons should be a haven of good beer and conversation but, as things are, such people are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[Emil Miller]

You're okay - it's not a cliché.


Rites of passage - that's a cliché.

You're absolutely rite.

[MarkBastable]

But is the so-called benefit one or two glasses of wine that an extremely select subsection of society enjoy worth the sum of suffering, disruption and destruction that also occurs?

Hang on - there are so many assumptions and implications in there, that's it's hard to know where to start.

First - what's that 'so-called' doing there? If you don't accept that the benefits are real, you have to say so, because if they don't exist then the rest of the sentence is pointless. If you do accept that they are real then 'so-called' just looks like a graceless attempt to give yourself a get-out later.

Second, no one quantified the amount of wine that led to benefit, so 'one or two glasses' is your own unsupported estimate of what the people you're talking about might consume.

Third, we need to see some kind of numerical definition of 'an extremely select subsection of society', plus some data that backs up your numbers and an insight into what you feel makes that those counted are 'select'. Who's doing the selecting? Or are they self-selecting by getting benefit from drinking? In which case we need to know how they manage to self-select, and we can dismiss the implicit idea that 'select' means 'few'. That'll just bring us back to what you think is the size of the subsection who enjoy the benefits of drinking.

And I'd also like to know how you are going to 'sum' the 'suffering, disruption and destruction', and how you'll weigh that against the benefit, which you're going to have to sum in the same way in order to get some idea of the net position.


In other words, that's not a great paragraph, in terms of making your point - and makes it really difficult to agree with you, even though I think you've got an argument.

But, as I implied in an earlier post, I think the real problem with your position is that it smacks more than a little of moral condescension. Here's why....


Does Nik think that he's the only person to know that alcohol is dangerous?

Probably not.

So, does he think that the obvious and intelligent response to knowing it's dangerous is not to drink it?

Well, yeah. He's said that. That was his first statement.

Though he does drink it from time to time?

Well, yeah. But not often. He knows it's dangerous. He's not stupid.

But he knows lots of people do drink a lot?

Yeah.

And he knows they probably know that it's dangerous?

Yes - it's not a secret.

Ah - so he must think they are stupid.

Hm. Interesting deduction. Dunno. Shall we ask him?

[MarkBastable]

such people are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

You can apologise for that one if you like.

[Emil Miller]

You can apologise for that one if you like.

I agree that there is little excuse for using clichés but they do occur from time to time, because that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Vonny]

Lots and lots of people drive cars safely, but a very small minority drive recklessly and dangerously, potentially harming themselves and others around them - should we then ban cars? After all, by your argument surely the misery of the few should outweigh the benefit of the many?

There are plenty of addictive things out there, and many of them are not even substances - gambling, for instance. I strongly believe that addiction and abuse has more to do with the personality than the object.

I believe that the OP wasn't directed so much to the people who "have it together." He was directing it to those ( :p ) of a certain personality type.

I don't drive. I used to, but I realized I'm not a great driver so I quit. I have never, ever touched alcohol and driven. [I'll edit this out... not really relevant.] so I have never actually had a citation on my record. I've never had a brush with the law. I just decided to quit driving before I hit a pedestrian.

Chemical addiction doesn't run in my family. My mother was often drunk from the time I was 7 until I was about 13. It disturbed me to see her "transform" and I'd beg her not to drink. She would look at me with her glazed face and tell me to hush. But when she decided to stop she did so without difficulty. I also am not an alcoholic. If I drink too much I'm turned off it for quite a while. I don't crave alcohol at all. I just sometimes do it and abuse it.

I began drinking in 5th grade. My mother, who tells me that the most important thing for me to remember is never take the Lord's name in vain, and who would go out of her mind if I ever touched marijuana, or cocaine, began buying me my very own bottle of wine, when I was 10 years old. She even took me to the store and let me pick out my flavor, such as strawberry. She wanted to pacify me while she went out on dates, and I wasn't satisfied as most children are with hamburgers.

In the beginning I was careful to drink only a sip, as though it was cough medicine. I don't remember getting drunk until about 9th grade.

The other issue for me is that there's a very fine line between just having fun and being completely wasted. I can get drunk on one beer. It doesn't last a long time, but for a little while, I'm drunk.

I think the OP's point here is that if you wouldn't give your children cocaine, maybe you shouldn't give them alcohol. However, I once knew an Italian girl who grew up with wine at the dinner table every night. She had been drinking wine for as long as she could remember with no complications. However, she did have that family structure around her.

So I think the OP's intention is to remind us that alcohol is a hard drug. Many college students in my country die from alcohol poisoning. I look back now and see how I could have died from alcohol poisoning when I was in 9th grade, because no one had ever told me that there is such a thing as alcohol poisoning.

Once as a teenager I chugged a vast amount of beer quickly. A boy I was with was alarmed that I had done a stupid thing so he filled a 2-litter soda bottle with water, took me behind the house, and forced me to drink water quickly so everything came up before it entered my blood stream. Apparently someone had informed that boy that alcohol is a hard drug.

[papayahed]

I agree that there is little excuse for using clichés but they do occur from time to time, because that's the way the cookie crumbles.


You know what they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him not drink.








What?

[Vonny]

You know what they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him not drink.








What?


Not true, a drunken girl can be forced to drink water.

Maybe he didn't make me drink it, but even though I was drunk I could see that he cared, and so I drank it.


Oops, I didn't get the twist... "not drink". You can't make a person not drink, but you can force them to throw it up after they've drunk.


You know, I think a relevant point here, is that the OP chose to put this under "serious discussions" and his premise is that alcohol is a hard drug, which has nothing to do with horses.

It's more about people :p like me.

[NikolaiI]

Hang on - there are so many assumptions and implications in there, that's it's hard to know where to start.

First - what's that 'so-called' doing there? If you don't accept that the benefits are real, you have to say so, because if they don't exist then the rest of the sentence is pointless. If you do accept that they are real then 'so-called' just looks like a graceless attempt to give yourself a get-out later.

Second, no one quantified the amount of wine that led to benefit, so 'one or two glasses' is your own unsupported estimate of what the people you're talking about might consume.

Third, we need to see some kind of numerical definition of 'an extremely select subsection of society', plus some data that backs up your numbers and an insight into what you feel makes that those counted are 'select'. Who's doing the selecting? Or are they self-selecting by getting benefit from drinking? In which case we need to know how they manage to self-select, and we can dismiss the implicit idea that 'select' means 'few'. That'll just bring us back to what you think is the size of the subsection who enjoy the benefits of drinking.

And I'd also like to know how you are going to 'sum' the 'suffering, disruption and destruction', and how you'll weigh that against the benefit, which you're going to have to sum in the same way in order to get some idea of the net position.


In other words, that's not a great paragraph, in terms of making your point - and makes it really difficult to agree with you, even though I think you've got an argument.

But, as I implied in an earlier post, I think the real problem with your position is that it smacks more than a little of moral condescension. Here's why....


Does Nik think that he's the only person to know that alcohol is dangerous?

Probably not.

So, does he think that the obvious and intelligent response to knowing it's dangerous is not to drink it?

Well, yeah. He's said that. That was his first statement.

Though he does drink it from time to time?

Well, yeah. But not often. He knows it's dangerous. He's not stupid.

But he knows lots of people do drink a lot?

Yeah.

And he knows they probably know that it's dangerous?

Yes - it's not a secret.

Ah - so he must think they are stupid.

Hm. Interesting deduction. Dunno. Shall we ask him?

I'll start over with that paragraph then, and just put it into a plain sentence; is the enjoyment people as a group get from it worth the pain and ruin of lives it also causes? I don't expect us all to have the same answers by any means, nor do I think there's a way to count and measure these things. It's a case where the only way you can decide the answer is by your intuition.

I don't think no one should drink it. I do think people should think for themselves, act not based on conformtiy or conditioning, and I think none of these things are happening wide-scale. Instead I see people acting out of conformity and influences of the media and the society; and sure, that's an evolutionary imperative, and it's helped us survive. But now it's more important that we think for oursevles a bit more. I see people living out their lives in illusions, growing more and more used to distractions and empty entertainment. I see alcohol as part of the problem; not in its essence, but in its utility. And the overwhelming societal urge to defend the way things currently are.

I think, yeah, as Vonny said, all I really want to do is make some effort against the tidal wave and inertia of thoughtless acceptance of the media's portrayal of reality, in this case with respect to the drug alcohol. And Mark, while there are pros and cons to every country, let me tell you this is one of the most media-influenced ones there are. Our whole culture, at least on the surface, is like written out by them, and it's an extremely shallow one. I see it that way, and care enough to raise my voice about it.

So I think I should clarify, I don't have a problem with alcohol. Just like I don't have a problem with the other hard drugs. As I said, I'm not for banning alcohol and I don't believe absolutist responses are either beneficial or, of course, possible. We live in an absolutist society, however, in the sense that we've drawn up distinctions between these substances. Cocaine is illegal, and absolutely wrong and bad for us, by society's standards, while alcohol is legal, and absolutely acceptable and good, again by society's standards. I don't think this kind of rigidity or absolutism is the right way to view things. Primarily my concern is that people weaken themselves by giving up the resonpsibility of thinking for themselves, and the modern view of alcohol - and I am tempered by location, for I have lived my life mostly in America, and can only compare it to Canada, which I do feel is far less controlled - the modern view of alcohol is one of the biggest examples.

And no I can't give you numbers and measurements of people's well-being. And some things you can't measure by numbers. A revolution for instance, isn't predicated by research and study, it's predicated by people not having food to eat.


Lots and lots of people drive cars safely, but a very small minority drive recklessly and dangerously, potentially harming themselves and others around them - should we then ban cars? After all, by your argument surely the misery of the few should outweigh the benefit of the many?

There are plenty of addictive things out there, and many of them are not even substances - gambling, for instance. I strongly believe that addiction and abuse has more to do with the personality than the object.

I agree with your last statement as well.

Cars are not really the best idea, anyway. Why ought it require 2,000 lbs. of steel as a body for a vehicle to carry people around in? Now I know - it got that way because people enjoy them. And you can't really stop it now, nor could you ever. But it probably would have made more sense in the long run to reserve our non-renewable energies for when they really matter. I know, I know you can't change history, in this case even if you went back in time, for sure. You can't expect humanity to act intelligently as a mass group. My reasoning for this line of thought is; what if we do run out of oil, in some near future, and we solve partially the problem of replacing it, but then some worldwide catastrophe occurs in which we'd need the better original one. But we'd have used it all up.

In the long run, can you really say it's for the benefit that we have cars? Wouldn't it have been better to save that resource?

[MarkBastable]

is the enjoyment people as a group get from it worth the pain and ruin of lives it also causes?

Yes.



You have a very pessimistic view of the universe in general, and mankind in particular, don't you?

I'd have a drink and cheer up, if I were you.

[Lokasenna]

I agree with your last statement as well.

Cars are not really the best idea, anyway. Why ought it require 2,000 lbs. of steel as a body for a vehicle to carry people around in? Now I know - it got that way because people enjoy them. And you can't really stop it now, nor could you ever. But it probably would have made more sense in the long run to reserve our non-renewable energies for when they really matter. I know, I know you can't change history, in this case even if you went back in time, for sure. You can't expect humanity to act intelligently as a mass group. My reasoning for this line of thought is; what if we do run out of oil, in some near future, and we solve partially the problem of replacing it, but then some worldwide catastrophe occurs in which we'd need the better original one. But we'd have used it all up.

In the long run, can you really say it's for the benefit that we have cars? Wouldn't it have been better to save that resource?

My analogy was actually to do with self-destructive behaviour, rather than any environmental argument, though I take your point. Cars do indeed have negative consequences, but I think their overall effect is a beneficial one. And, if I'm honest, I think the same is true of alcohol. The pleasure of a gin & tonic after a long day's work, or the enjoyment of an evening in the pub with a group of friends, are both wonderful things. So long as alcohol is treated with respect, I really do think it is harmless. For those who lack the self-control to treat potentially hazardous pastimes with respect, then they need help or restriction - that, surely, is more the duty of a compassionate society than an outright ban? To treat, as it were, the problem rather than the symptom?

Also, I've been looking at that chart you flagged up earlier, and the more I examine it, the less convinced I become by it. I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that ecstasy is less addictive and less harmful than alcohol - that is clearly nonsense. I know of people who were killed by the first 'E' they ever took; I personally know people who were terribly addicted to ecstasy, and I know people who were hospitalised after a comparatively brief exposure to the stuff. I think the same is true of several other things that come up under alcohol (and tobacco) on that chart.

[Vonny]

For those who lack the self-control to treat potentially hazardous pastimes with respect, then they need help or restriction

In my opinion this could have been reduced to one sentence. LOL!

I have my friend to make sure from now on!



Cars do indeed have negative consequences, but I think their overall effect is a beneficial one.

I just noticed this. This is encouraging. The horrific end time scenario is more than I can handle.

[Delta40]

It's a democracy isn't it? If alcohol is available to the 'responsible' it should be available to the 'not so responsible' What are we all of sudden? Big Daddy to self-destructive folk so we can feel like we're superior or something?

[Vonny]

It's a democracy isn't it? If alcohol is available to the 'responsible' it should be available to the 'not so responsible' What are we all of sudden? Big Daddy to self-destructive folk so we can feel like we're superior or something?

Yes Delta, I agree, because I'm more responsible than many of the ones who would pass those laws.

[Delta40]

I'm glad Vonny. I just don't agree with imposing standards on some people because it offends the senses of those who categorise themself as responsible. I hope you don't think I was making a personal dig at you.

[Vonny]

I'm glad Vonny. I just don't agree with imposing standards on some people because it offends the senses of those who categorise themself as responsible. I hope you don't think I was making a personal dig at you.

Certainly not.

[Delta40]

I must admit I'm often at odds with the alcohol debate. Firstly through my own personal experiences and secondly the more objective debate about its effects. Perhaps I watch too much Law & Order (lol) but at the end of the day, I decide to put it all aside and accept the fact that alcohol is legal to those over 18 and that is the end of that - no matter what harm it causes!

[Vonny]

I must admit I'm often at odds with the alcohol debate. Firstly through my own personal experiences and secondly the more objective debate about its effects. Perhaps I watch too much Law & Order (lol) but at the end of the day, I decide to put it all aside and accept the fact that alcohol is legal to those over 18 and that is the end of that - no matter what harm it causes!

We learned in the US the consequences of The Prohibition.

And if alcohol were illegal for those deemed "less responsible" and 911 (paramedics) had been called on me last week, imagine what that would mean for me in terms of employment, etc.

[Delta40]

We learned in the US the consequences of The Prohibition.

And if alcohol were illegal for those deemed "less responsible" and 911 (paramedics) had been called on me last week, imagine what that would mean for me in terms of employment, etc.

It's a good point about prohibition and the way people respond when something is taken away from them!

[NikolaiI]

is the enjoyment people as a group get from it worth the pain and ruin of lives it also causes?

Yes.

You have a very pessimistic view of the universe in general, and mankind in particular, don't you?

I'd have a drink and cheer up, if I were you.

Er, no, my life is filled with love and peace, and most of the time I am filled with gratitude at how blessed and beautiful life is. I feel these things more than I can contain them. I am cheerful and optimistic, and positive, confident and hopeful in life as much as I can be, because these things have a great deal of power. And of mankind - in individuals, I love most everyone, and get along with them. I am open, tolerant and respectful to people, everyone, as much as I can be, and genuinely so. It may have been a conscious effort to begin with but by long habit it's who I am.

I am these things because it's what my mind and heart tells me is the best way to be, and I give my all into it. That's the reason I'm happy in life..

Thing is, I think people shouldn't weaken themselves, and they should think for themselves more.

Don't personalize things. If you don't wish to discuss anything anymore, then just don't. I'll do you the favor of not personalizing the debate at all, either.

Bringing up questions is a good thing - discussing things and debating them. In fact it's a useful tool to even debate a side of an issue that you don't personally believe in. Did you never do that in school?


It's a democracy isn't it? If alcohol is available to the 'responsible' it should be available to the 'not so responsible' What are we all of sudden? Big Daddy to self-destructive folk so we can feel like we're superior or something?

This doesn't make sense - who is talking about making it available to the responsible and not to the irresponsbile? Who is talking about banning it, as Loka brought up? I don't get your post at all.

I just wanted to raise the questions that crop up in my thoughts when I observe this country. Why are things this way? And I wanted to spark discussion because I think that critically thinking is important.

[Scheherazade]

Nick> I agree with you that discussions should not be personalised; I often ask people to refrain from doing just that but it is very hard to avoid it when the other party is giving examples from their own experiences to make their points.

[Delta40]

yes. Guess we should all just remain objective and be general about people in general....

so be it.

[NikolaiI]

yes. Guess we should all just remain objective and be general about people in general....

so be it.

It's not that, it's just - being called a pessimist because I observe my friends being adversely affected by alcohol is way out from left field. Or being reacted to in such a way because I'm raising questions about the way things are.. You know it's enough to disagree and yes, objectively discuss things. You can say, "I disagree, and here's why" rather than just saying "you have a very pessimistic view..."

I keep coming back to that homeless guy under the bridge I met, Whiskey, nearly completely wasted away from alcohol. Even one human life, I would say, is more valuable than any good that comes from alcohol. My grandmother died at 54 of alcoholism, and my father's father died at 74 from alcohol and cigarette related strokes. But nearly his entire life he was an alcoholic, and for most of it, and extremely abusive one. My mother's mother was in a way even more abusive. I just find it specious and shallow to attack someone's position indirectly, personally, because you disagree with their conclusions. In my perspective, my conclusion, to the questions I raised, was that the loss human life outweighs the enjoyment factors for others. You can disagree without attacking personally. But you can't really discuss objectively after peronsal attacks start.

[Vonny]

It's not that, it's just - being called a pessimist because I observe my friends being adversely affected by alcohol is way out from left field. Or being reacted to in such a way because I'm raising questions about the way things are.. You know it's enough to disagree and yes, objectively discuss things. You can say, "I disagree, and here's why" rather than just saying "you have a very pessimistic view..."

I keep coming back to that homeless guy under the bridge I met, Whiskey, nearly completely wasted away from alcohol. Even one human life, I would say, is more valuable than any good that comes from alcohol. My grandmother died at 54 of alcoholism, and my father's father died at 74 from alcohol and cigarette related strokes. But nearly his entire life he was an alcoholic, and for most of it, and extremely abusive one. My mother's mother was in a way even more abusive. I just find it specious and shallow to attack someone's position indirectly, personally, because you disagree with their conclusions. In my perspective, my conclusion, to the questions I raised, was that the loss human life outweighs the enjoyment factors for others. You can disagree without attacking personally. But you can't really discuss objectively after peronsal attacks start.

Thank you for sharing Nikolai. You never know how many lives and hearts you may touch, now and into the future. Often they are the voices you don't hear.

[NikolaiI]

Thank you for sharing Nikolai. You never know how many lives and hearts you may touch, now and into the future. Often they are the voices you don't hear.

You reminded me of Amma, something she said.. "Each thought and action has the power to brighten or darken many lives." :)

[Delta40]

I didn't say you had a pessimistic view. I value the subjectivity of people's experience as much as the objectivity of a discussion. Frankly, I believe it enhances understanding and reminds us of our humaness, where pure objectiveness catapults us further into the world of theories where we can detach ourselves from the realities around us.

I'm sorry if you have misinterpreted me.

[NikolaiI]

I didn't say you had a pessimistic view. I value the subjectivity of people's experience as much as the objectivity of a discussion. Frankly, I believe it enhances understanding and reminds us of our humaness, where pure objectiveness catapults us further into the world of theories where we can detach ourselves from the realities around us.

I'm sorry if you have misinterpreted me.

No, no, not at all. I'm sorry that it seemed that I meant you, I was referring to an earlier post of Mark's. I think it went like, you were replying to Scher who was replying to me who was replying to Mark. :p I agree with what you say about the subjectivity of experience and objectivity of discussion. But if you and I are talking about a topic, and then you start talking about me instead of the topic (and this is hypothetical, I don't think that has ever happened bewteen you and I), then the discussion has been completely de-railed and isn't even really useful anymore.

It's disingenuous and specious to personalize comments in that way, for there's no defense. "You seem to have a very pessimistic view of the universe in general, and mankind in particular." "Um, no I don't, I genuinely like almost everyone and I am incredibly cheerful, positive and hopeful." "No, you're not."

It immediately slides of the scale from logical, possibly useful discussion into pointlessness.

[Delta40]

Oh good! I seem to have got on the wrong side of people this week, both online and off so it's good to clarify things Nikolai and I agree with you fully about personalised conclusions which do derail the conversation.

phew!

[NikolaiI]

Oh good! I seem to have got on the wrong side of people this week, both online and off so it's good to clarify things Nikolai and I agree with you fully about personalised conclusions which do derail the conversation.

phew!

Ah. No, that was definitely not the case here; my fault entirely. I have a tendency to write a post that begins in replying directly to someone but shifts back to the original topic or just goes all on its own tangent for a little while.

[MarkBastable]

Don't personalize things. If you don't wish to discuss anything anymore, then just don't. I'll do you the favor of not personalizing the debate at all, either.



Sorry - it did look as though I was personalising the argument, and that's because I didn't record the whole thought process.

So, what I meant to say was that I think your argument isn't entirely objective, but is based on a pre-existing assumption that tends towards the negative. I'd offer a couple of supports for that.

First, although the benefits and costs of alcohol are not summable let alone comparable, you make the choice that the latter outweigh the former. I'd say that a tendency to think the worst without having any objective reason to do so is evidence of pessimism.

Second, there's this:
what if we do run out of oil, in some near future, and we solve partially the problem of replacing it, but then some worldwide catastrophe occurs in which we'd need the better original one. But we'd have used it all up.

I'm all for thought experiments as part of the rhetorical arsenal, but this isn't one really, because it has a conclusion built in to it. So it's more a speculation about the future - and of all the futures you could have speculated, you chose the one that involves worldwide catastrophe - which does not, I'd suggest, imply a mindset of joyous and dew-kissed anticipation of the treasures tomorrow may bring.

So, you may say you're not pessimistic, and certainly all I have to go on is what you post - but the posts did suggest that to me, so I think my observation is germane to the argument. It's personal only in as far as it rather takes as read the idea that any view is shaped by the personality of the viewer, so how the viewer views is a valid part of any discussion.

And, just so you know, I don't think pessimism is necessarily a bad thing. I do think it has an effect on how one sees the world, but it's not necessarily an unarguable one.

Just as an aside (and not referring specifically to you, Nik), I've noticed that no one ever worries about comments being personal when they are complimentary - although those are just as unsupported and just as irrelevant to the argument as any 'negative' comment. So when anyone suggests that another poster's contribution is evidence of an expansive and sympathetic soul ringing with the harmonies of the universe, no one ever says, "Excuse me - that's a personal comment. Please stay on topic." and then no Mod pops up in bold and kills the thread. Why's that?

[Vonny]

Just as an aside (and not referring specifically to you, Nik), I've noticed that no one ever worries about comments being personal when they are complimentary - although those are just as unsupported and just as irrelevant to the argument as any 'negative' comment. So when anyone suggests that another poster's contribution is evidence of an expansive and sympathetic soul ringing with the harmonies of the universe, no one ever says, "Excuse me - that's a personal comment. Please stay on topic." and then no Mod pops up in bold and kills the thread. Why's that?

It's because God works in mysterious ways.

[Scheherazade]

It's because God works in mysterious ways.I am not sure if I feel very comfortable with being likened to a god...

[MarkBastable]

I am not sure if I feel very comfortable being likened to a god...

Not a god. God.

Don't feel insulted by the comparison. He speaks very highly of you. I know. He tells me things. Through the TV.

[NikolaiI]

Sorry - it did look as though I was personalising the argument, and that's because I didn't record the whole thought process.

Ah, no problem, friend.


So, what I meant to say was that I think your argument isn't entirely objective, but is based on a pre-existing assumption that tends towards the negative. I'd offer a couple of supports for that.

First, although the benefits and costs of alcohol are not summable let alone comparable, you make the choice that the latter outweigh the former. I'd say that a tendency to think the worst without having any objective reason to do so is evidence of pessimism.

Then it may be an issue of framing. I'm not "thinking the worst" without any objective reason. What I mean is, human life is invaluable. Somewhere around 2.5 million people annually die from alcohol related deaths worldwide. But in general, I'm not thinking about those kinds of numbers or statistics, but rather the individual cases that occur near me. Like if 1,000 people in my town die a year from it. To me, that loss of human life is heavier felt than the good caused by alcohol. True, it is impossible for me to gauge precisely how much good is caused by it on the whole, and all I can do is a rough approximation based on obsevation and inference. And my value of human life is a subjective one, granted - and it is significantly based on not only the realized good but also the potential good. But on the whole, the entire thought process is a reasoned progression, if based on certain subjective values. Not just "Oog, bad more than good."


Second, there's this:

. . .

I'm all for thought experiments as part of the rhetorical arsenal, but this isn't one really, because it has a conclusion built in to it. So it's more a speculation about the future - and of all the futures you could have speculated, you chose the one that involves worldwide catastrophe - which does not, I'd suggest, imply a mindset of joyous and dew-kissed anticipation of the treasures tomorrow may bring.

I may not not have explained well. Or I guess, obviously I did not. I will try to. Put another way - let's say in your house, of all your possessions, there is one that is irreplacable. The rest can be replaced, but this one cannot. What is your attitude towards this object, then? If it is of value to you, you would keep it at all costs.

Or let us say; you lived somewhere, in a house, and your house was furnished, etc., you had books, amenities, but nothing that could really be traded for money value. Now let's say you had $1,000 in cahs. But for some reason, there was no way you would ever be able to earn another dollar. It would be possible for you to earn your food by work, but in general it would be rather laborious for you. (This a hypothetical situation, a fixed system and not a happy reality, but it is only to make the point). That $1,000 dollars would be very valuable to you, would it not? Now you knew the facts of the situation, what would you do with that $1,000 dollars? Use it all up at once?

Now, as for the "of all possible futures," part, where you say I am pessimistic because I picked the one that was included global catastrophe. Well I was trying to make a point, but you missed it and wrongly concluded I'm pessimistic. Now I've really failed, because pessimism is one of the least desirable traits that I've ever seen in person. Vivekananda's philosophical stance that weakness is the only sin definitely has merit to it, and pessimism is certainly connected to weakness.

When we discovered gasoline, we discovered a miracle fuel. It gave more energy when it burned than anything we'd ever discovered. A few decades after the first cars were developed, they were extremely commonplace, and continued to be so to this day. At some point we figured out that gasoline was a non-renewable resource. By this time, though, it was already unthinkable that we give up our cars. So we burned up oil with no regard for saving it. And we continue to do so. It's neither pessimistic nor optimistic, it's just a fact. We went through that $1,000 very quickly. We may come to a time when we need the non-renewable resources - that took millions upon millions of years to naturally occur - that we burned dry. Now I said may, with no weight towards the likelihood or unlikelihood. The point is, if we'd saved a significant portion of it, wisely, then we'd be okay if we need it in the future or not. But if we do away with all of it, and we do need it, we're out of luck (key word there). It has nothing to do with pessimism or optimism. An incredibly simple solution would be to save some of the black stuff. The government, or somebody, should do this. I'm surprised it's not talked about more, it seems very obvious. Hell, I'll do it if I get around to it. If for no other reason than the profit value.


So, you may say you're not pessimistic, and certainly all I have to go on is what you post - but the posts did suggest that to me, so I think my observation is germane to the argument. It's personal only in as far as it rather takes as read the idea that any view is shaped by the personality of the viewer, so how the viewer views is a valid part of any discussion.

I suppose it is. Anyway, sorry if I wrote a little too much on something a little tangential.

And, just so you know, I don't think pessimism is necessarily a bad thing. I do think it has an effect on how one sees the world, but it's not necessarily an unarguable one.[/quote]

Hm. Maybe it isn't always a bad thing. But usually it is.


Just as an aside (and not referring specifically to you, Nik), I've noticed that no one ever worries about comments being personal when they are complimentary - although those are just as unsupported and just as irrelevant to the argument as any 'negative' comment. So when anyone suggests that another poster's contribution is evidence of an expansive and sympathetic soul ringing with the harmonies of the universe, no one ever says, "Excuse me - that's a personal comment. Please stay on topic." and then no Mod pops up in bold and kills the thread. Why's that?

Hm. Well, there are certainly lots of ways of answering this. I have a feeling I heard you say once you're an only child, but have you ever heard a parent say to their child "Be good to your brother/sister"? It's something like that. You've heard of the research showing that when someone performs, or receives, or even observes an act of kindness, that they have an increase in serotonin and a corresponding boost in the immune system? Happiness is extremely important to health, and those comments make people happy more than the other kind, and the moderators want us to be healthy. That's my guess.

[MarkBastable]

Hm. Well, there are certainly lots of ways of answering this. I have a feeling I heard you say once you're an only child, but have you ever heard a parent say to their child "Be good to your brother/sister"?

No, I'm the eldest of five. I thought of myself as a responsible adult by the time I was nine.

[virginiawang]

I’ve been getting much healthier lately, and to my surprise, I ate a fish twice. It was a miracle for me. I believe I will become healthier than anyone can ever imagine, in days to come, because I am in love with a man who drinks. I believe in the love, my health, and all the beauty of the world, in which I wish to stay for an eternity, to feel his love. It is so beautiful.

[Scheherazade]

Not a god. God.

Don't feel insulted by the comparison. He speaks very highly of you. I know. He tells me things. Through the TV.Cable? Which channel?

[tonywalt]

I’ve been getting much healthier lately, and to my surprise, I ate a fish twice. It was a miracle for me. I believe I will become healthier than anyone can ever imagine, in days to come, because I am in love with a man who drinks. I believe in the love, my health, and all the beauty of the world, in which I wish to stay for an eternity to feel his love. It is so beautiful.

Single White Male seeking woman who eats fish. Caveat: I drinks a bit.

[Delta40]

How on earth did you eat a fish twice? lol

[MarkBastable]

How on earth did you eat a fish twice? lol


Cats do it all the time. Though it's not pretty.

[qimissung]

Alcohol is a drug, but one we've been consuming since time immemorial. I don't think it would work to try to enforce a ban on. In fact in the United states we have only just gotten back to pre-prohibition rates of drinking.

In fact I'm really starting to think we should legalise marijuana. We should look into it. How is it working out in Holland, for example. They don't seem to have the problems we do.

[Delta40]

Alcohol is a drug, but one we've been consuming since time immemorial. I don't think it would work to try to enforce a ban on. In fact in the United states we have only just gotten back to pre-prohibition rates of drinking.

I agree. You can't unring the bell - maybe drown it out with other bells....but Lord knows what they would be!