Quoted post unavailable.
It's just medical advice...
No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
61–70 of 1001 posts
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less "no fun allowed" generic conspiracy stuff, more "hey, these are the consequences to some of that fun, please keep them in mind as you establish the risk level you're comfortable with".
The advocacy tips at the end of the brief are shockingly anti-fun.
These ones?
> Cost-effective interventions to reduce alcohol consumption include strengthening restrictions on alcohol availability, enforcing bans on alcohol advertising, and facilitating access to screening and treatment.
"Restrictions on alcohol availability" could be anti-fun if implemented in the extreme (hopefully we've learned prohibition doesn't work), the other two are pretty standard.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#63I know of a man who had a shot of 96 percent alcohol (192 proof) every single day and died at the age of 96.
From Wikipedia:
Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson’s quote to apply here?
Suppose the law states that David Haroldson (or the Glorious Leader, or foreign diplomats) cannot be convicted of any crime. That's inconsistent, (perhaps) arbitrary, and unfair. Yet, it would be foolish to extend this conviction-immunity to everybody.
I feel like that supports what I wrote.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson’s quote to apply here?
Suppose the law states that David Haroldson (or the Glorious Leader, or foreign diplomats) cannot be convicted of any crime. That's inconsistent, (perhaps) arbitrary, and unfair. Yet, it would be foolish to extend this conviction-immunity to everybody.
Or make it so glorious leader is not above the law.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#66Of course it isn’t. Drink water. Unfortunately some people believe they can’t enjoy themselves without alcohol. It’s curious: - babies have fun without drinking - kids have fun without drinking - some teens have fun without drinking Then at some point some people, as adults, feel like they have to drink to enjoy themselves? I wonder what happened. Edit: explicitly clarifying that I’m only talking about some people he…
As we age, we feel more pressure to conform socially, I think. Alcohol lets people feel uninhibited like kids temporarily.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson’s quote to apply here?
Suppose the law states that David Haroldson (or the Glorious Leader, or foreign diplomats) cannot be convicted of any crime. That's inconsistent, (perhaps) arbitrary, and unfair. Yet, it would be foolish to extend this conviction-immunity to everybody.
For the sake of consistency, wouldn’t it be desirable for the glorious leader to be subject to the same legal punishments as the masses?
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less "no fun allowed" generic conspiracy stuff, more "hey, these are the consequences to some of that fun, please keep them in mind as you establish the risk level you're comfortable with".
The advocacy tips at the end of the brief are shockingly anti-fun.
Which ones? They say to regulate who can sell alcohol, raise prices/taxes, raise the drinking age, limit advertising, add prominent warnings...I guess those first few are arguably "anti-fun", but they don't seem especially so.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should probably consider legalizing everything else that's less harmful to at least be consistent. Please do not decide policy using this kind of reasoning. Maybe we should legalise more stuff, but “worse things are legal” is not a good reason. > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. — Ralph Waldo…
Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson’s quote to apply here?
I’m generally pro-legalization, but there are many things that we hypothesize are safe but do not know the long-term effects of and, within living memory, have discovered that many things initially thought safe were not.
People were taking X-ray images of shoe fit in department stores, we used thalidomide to treat morning sickness, etc.
What society says is legal has an effect on how it is perceived and how frequently it’s accessed by minors, teens, young adults, and adults. Exercising a modicum of conservatism in approving all things that we think are safer than alcohol seems appropriate to me.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#70Yes but a moderate amount with good friends is great for my soul.
My friend and family groups have been making a consistent effort to stop romanticizing alcohol and have gatherings without it. There's no denying alcohol is a social lubricant that can be very enjoyable.