>>11769292>Alcohol consumption literally is an on/off switchAgain, spoken like a retard. You're essentially describing alcoholism and alcohol abuse. And if we want to argue that alcohol by default is detrimental to you, that's a really slippery slope as the same argument can be applied to pretty much anything. Like, sitting on a computer is scientifically proven to be bad for your health. Point being, very rare things are an on/off switch, and this is especially valuable point if your argument for self control is spoken without a sliver of hypocrisy.
>This whole paragraph is what I referred to when I used the term "projecting"I admit I probably misread you then, probably because I wouldn't have believed your entire fucking point was something as retarded as what semantically constitutes as being "deep". I really thought you had some more analytic rebuttal. Look, we can really just ditch the word "deep" if it offends you. It doesn't change anything.
That being said, and especially now if I managed to grasp your shoddy point, you haven't really proven the original post wrong to any extent. The post doesn't argue for meaning. You project your own idea of what constitutes as "deep" as criticism, which is pedantic and worthless. The post specifically argues that when """truly ascended""" you can ignore most opposition towards alcohol as inherently silly, which of course is true, as evident here with the on/off fuckery.
And hey, if we want to be super anal about this all, in a semantic sense again, the original post never says you can't look down on for example reckless drinking, just that you gain nothing from it. The post is specifically geared to comment on the idea of "normie" usage, and the impression that we're talking in absolutes is something stemming from your personal reading. Which again makes sense only if you operate on an on/off scale, meaning you have still ways to go to ascension.
