>>11769695>>11769699>No! Argue semantics past all absurdity.To be fair, the argument was semantics pretty early on, as the idea that alcohol as a word has
objective implications is semantic, and that's literally your starting stance. I understand you're trying to make this a biological thing, but I've never disagreed with biology. If it weren't for semantics, we'd be arguing the on/off thing, which we covered pretty sufficiently to the point you couldn't reply anymore. In other words, the idea that you realistically treat alcohol usage as alcoholism, which in hindsight should have been the red flag.
>Negative health effects are a value judgement.Indeed, and they are also an actively constructed attachment. This is the important part.
>I think I'm done.That's good to hear. I mean, I guess I'm sad you never acknowledged that the entire exchange was just because you misinterpreted the first post and started constructing a semantic strawman, or the inherent hypocrisy, but at least I had the "pleasure" to see all sorts of fucked up jumbled arguments. Earlier on someone put pretty nicely that for example the entire "technically even one dosage of alcohol is bad but in a largely irrelevant way" that you went on with the start of the squabble is so fucking trivial that in hindsight it makes me even slightly embarrassed. What a fucking shitshow, hopefully I'll never have the displeasure of replying to you again
[spoiler:lit]I'm pretty sure you can't resist replying to this and I'll get one more piece of autistic hatemail, so really looking forward to that.[/spoiler:lit]
