Counter-argument: if the beer-drinker is "selfish," then the onus is on them to drink water instead? Why isn't the water drinker "selfish" for imposing that concept on the innocent beer drinker?
> It's extremely, unbelievably selfish. I like wine myself, but alcohol brings so much misery to the world!
And so much happiness! I'm more of a beer man myself, but drinking alcohol in good company is something millions (billions?) of people get pleasure out of. Only a small proportion of alcohol users harm themselves or others through it.
You'd kill a random person in the street for a world without alcohol, and you think PG statement is "extremely, unbelievably selfish". Why the idea of sacrifying yourself instead didn't come first ?
If drinking beer only had a negative effect on society based on how much beer we collectively drank and you drank beer only when you paid someone else to drink that much less beer, then the analogy would fit and yes, you would indeed not be contributing on net to the drinking problem such as it were.
Lots of people care. I regularly go to a sports bar that features beers around the world. The guys in my group love to peruse the beer app that the bar sponsors. I order water and eat only the healthier items on the menu.
Despite their love of beer, I think that my health consciousness weighs on them... makes them feel a little guilty. Consequently, they make little comments about my lack of drinking. Harmless stuff, but my guess is that they're actually expressing disappointment in themselves.
I especially notice that when new people are with the group, the core members feel that they have to point out and explain that I only order water. So there's obviously some tension and discomfort there.
Everyone's got their vice. Some people have many. Alcohol just isn't yours. I personally love beer. I really enjoy it... but i have nothing against anyone for making the decision not to drink it.
He's against irresponsible drinking to the point where it will cause harm to oneself and others, but for responsible drinking to the degree that it will confer benefits.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or why you think it's a ridiculous opinion.
People respond to incentives. If you add an incentive to drink more, they will do so. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is hard to tell, but you can't ignore the fact that they are there.
You're correct. I'm not a beer drinker, or a social drinker at all, so I'm not well calibrated on what would be typical. So I was certainly not arguing that the conclusion was wrong. Just that the argument the author presented didn't make a very strong case.
Did you read the article? The person discussed is a recovering alcoholic. She complains that the only way she can get a water is to go to the bar. (I got the impression she was afraid of relapsing.)
It's much easier to walk up to the bar and ask for a water if you're someone who's avoided alcohol throughout your life, instead of someone who's a recovering addict, who actively fears a relapse.
(And, I'll be honest, when I'm driving, or my stomach is upset, I have no problem ordering a soda water. I don't even try to hide that I'm not drinking. I dealt with enough pressure in my college fraternity that I realized that the only people who care how much I drink are alcoholics.)
That's a strawman. There's a difference between drinking a couple of pints of beer with buddies, and emptying a pint of cheap vodka and passing out on the street, covered in your own urine and/or vomit.
People tend to have a really strong reaction if you tell them they only need to drink when they're thirsty. I've stopped bringing it up in public since it's such a divisive topic.
would you give a 5 year old a beer? no? exactly. everyone knows drinking is bad for you. they do it anyway, because "reasons" [1]
anyone who disagrees is just being irrational.
[1] which may include partying and hooking up, as well as removing any awkwardness they have.
reply