Ignoramus6334 wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>, Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Ignoramus6334 wrote:
::::: The Russians believe that if you get drunk regularly alone, you
::::: are definitely an alcoholic. Your post sounds, frankly, alarming.
:::
::: So, according to that belief, if you get drunk regularly with a
::: group, you're not definitely an alcoholic?
::
:: Roger, sometimes you surprise me by not being able to use logic
:: properly.
::
:: Hint. If I say that A follows from B (as in, being an alcoholic
:: follows from getting drunk alone), that does not say anything at all
:: about what is implied in all other instances when B is not true.
Oh, I understand the logic.....
::
:: So, the Russians believe that a person who gets drunk alone often is
:: an alcoholic. From that, it does not follow that Russians think that
:: people who don't get drunk alone, cannot be alcoholics.
But, you're assuming the Russians are following logic. My question is this:
Why would someone who regularly gets drunk alone be an alcoholic while
someone who regularly gets drunk in a group not be - all else being equal?
IOW, what is it about being alone that makes a certain amount of getting
drunk a problem? To me, it's like saying if you get drunk every night by
yourself, you're in trouble, but if you do the same thing in a group, not
necessarily. How about this: If I stuff my face 'til I can't move while I'm
alone, I'm a binge eater. But if I do exactly the same thing in a group, I'm
not necessarily a binge eater.
Typically, common sayings and/or beliefs aren't things that follow logic.
I agree that I could have left out the word "definitely" in my first
comment. But my point is that the Russian saying seems to suggest that
actions done in a group have some redeeming value that those actions done
alone done get. Why would that be?
