|
|
|
|
|
|
by DropInIn
1073 days ago
|
|
|
No sh-t The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right? In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right? So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse? |
|
|
What I saw, you ended on a very vague set of statements that I assume were supposed to support that you were saying.
"Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful..."
Implication of alcohol being more harmful without evidence to support the claim.
History tells us lots of stories. For example, just because the temperance movement existed doesn't mean anything other than a bunch of people got it in their head that alcohol was the devil's drink and caused all of society's ills.
You also ended with an appeal to emotion, "Just ask the wives..." Instead of again supporting your claim that alcohol is more damaging with evidence.
To be clear, I'm not saying alcohol is or isn't more damaging. I'm saying that there isn't any evidence in these comments (yours and others) to support a claim of "X being worse than Y".