but at some degree, they are comparable
They are in the same category- things you do for fun/to feed an addiction that harm your body. I find this to be an intrinsic evil.
We’re not talking about accidents with small children, but being done on purpose. Ask any sane MD and they will tell you bleach is dangerous to drink. Your body will try to rid anything that’s toxic like antifreeze or bleach, but that doesn’t mean it’s less harmful than tobacco. I’m sorry but I just don’t see Bleach being safer to purposfully drink than using tobacco.
So the use of guns, knives, other weapons, cars, trucks, rocks, ect… are all sinful?
Well it’s all related to dosages- I’d wager half a sip of bleach does less than damage than a few packs of cigarettes. And when you can find an MD who would do anything but condemn smoking, let me know.
You stated some people get hooked on heroin immediately, I stated some people don’t live to try alcohol a second time. And again- says who? It’s impossible not to get addicted to heroin at any dose? Do you understand the mechanism of addiction at all?
Oh so now we’re wagering doses now? That’s a Red herring; you keep changing the subject to fit your position. Drinking bleach is less harmful than tobacco > Children drink doses of bleach, your stomich will just rid it > I’d wager half a sip does less damage than few pack of smokes (and I really love this last part) > And when you can find an MD who would do anything but condemn smoking, let me know. Thus again diverting from you’re orginal arguement bleach is less harmful than tobacco. So I’m not going to respond to that othat than what I said above.
So, that’s about as logical as me saying some race car drivers don’t come home from the track.
Beats the heck out of me, I sure didn’t say it. Anyways, the our society, let alone the church, hold that Heroin(illicit drug) to be dangerous and sinful(this is more so the church here) to use. They also hold drugs like alcohal and tobacco are okay to use in moderation. What is moderation? That’s between the tobacco/alcohal user and his/her priest.
I don’t shift the subject, I simply follow your claim- you say tobacco isn’t as bad as heroin/bleach. I say that’s relevant to the dosage. Is this a false claim? Would you reject that some minute dose of heroin could still deliver some effects, albeit weak ones, while posing less of a health risk then some dose of tobacco products?
Yes you did shift the subject and I already pointed it out; not to mention we just went from half a sip of bleach to minute dose of herion. Our arguement is, is bleach less harmful than tobacco; our arguement with herion is, can it be used in moderation, which you said it could in the beginnning. You are getting the arguements mixed up. You never said anything about dosage in the beginning. I never came to this thread to make a claim bleach is less harmful than tobacco. Only responded that bleach isn’t less harmful than tobacco.
I was discussing deserts, not natural sugars. It would be hard to avoid eating all sugar and obviously unhealthy to do so. But why eat desert? It is extra sugar that you don’t need, it is unhealthy, it is addictive and not necessary? Why go to the beach? You don’t need to, it is a waste of gas money, and sunbathing is just going to give you cancer.
Are you being facetious?
But whether or not it can be used in moderation is relevant to dosage. For example- one heroin molecule will have no effect what so ever. But a standard dose of heroin with have strong effects. Unless heroin effect on the body operates by discrete mechanics, we can assume by the intermediate value theorem that some dose will have moderate effects.
Because “less” and “more” harmful are misnomers. All substances have the ability to be either inert or fatal.
Sugar is not intrinsically harmful and has positive effects at times- at that point, dosage comes into question. Same with sunlight. Not so for tobacco.
Tobacco is a guaranteed harm at any dosage- amount taken in simply varies the degree. If you believe deliberately harming ourselves for “fun” is something we are called to do, then by all means proceed.
wha?
Your examples have impairment as a side effect- the “buzz” from alcohol is the intended effect.
Sure.
Stated in earlier reply- extremely low doses have no effect. Normal or high doses have large effects. By the intermediate value theorem, we can assume some dose of heroin has a mild effect. And I’m not saying you can take heroin in moderation and not alcohol. I’m saying you can take both in moderation, so the argument that heroin is never okay and alcohol is based on moderation is false.
When you celebrate pass over, you’re welcome to follow in his footsteps.
So lets clarify somethings. Do you admit that alcohol is not intrinsically harmful and can be taken in moderation? So it is tobacco that you take issue with? Also chemical categories are not the only valid ones. You can’t just say that because sugar is needed in our diet that the institution of desert is needed. Or that because we need food, the institution of fast food is ok. I’m not saying that they are not ok, but that looking at things on only a chemical level ignores other important factors.
Regardless of whether or not we need sun. Going to the beach is harming ourselves for fun. We don’t need to be out in sun that much and we don’t need to swim at all. With your logic, swimming is just asking to be drown. There are safer ways of exercising.
I’m recommending Chesterton because your posts seem to imply that to enjoy something is the same as to use something for selfish pleasure. Enjoyment has the word joy in it for a reason.
So you have read the summa on temperance? Do you care to refute his statement that drink is wrong when it takes away moral consideration and/or when it become gluttony? Not just when it causes mild barely noticeable temporary impairment?
We never said it wasn’t ever ok. There are medicinal uses for it. You could say that the argument centers around the proper use of things, not the possible use of them. I think that you would be very hard pressed to find one case of people using heroin in temperate doses outside of a medicinal setting. Although alcohol is often abused. I could find you millions of cases where it isn’t.
We celebrate passover every Sunday…and the blood has the accidents of wine. Which is kind of besides the point, but I’m just saying.
I state that all things can be taken in moderation. You do not knowingly take any intrinsically bad things into your body when you eat desert or fast food. Moderation becomes the parameter of interest here.
You’re horribly mischaracterizing what I said. You do not start drowning yourself when you go swimming for fun. Take this scenario pair- thing.
apa.org/releases/smokestress.html
I understand the difference, but damaging your body for enjoyment is not mere enjoyment.
Would you care to copy/paste it here? I’m having issues locating that statement
But you are allowing for the possibility of responsible recreational heroin use?
And according to some translations people at the party were drunk- not a stretch, sine the couple had gone through a party’s worth of wine. Does this mean Jesus was encouraging drunkenness?
This absoultly pointless. Nobody is going to inject one molecule of herion. It is not possible to take the required dose to produce a normal heroin high in moderation. It is possible to take the required dose of nicotine via tobacco. That right there is what matters.
But you would admit that, for some dose of heroin, there would be less negative side effects attached than a cigar?
Sorry I can’t answer that question with a sound answer. If you’re comparing one molecule of heroin to a gram of tobacco leaf, or some ratio of the sort, possible yes. Again, this doesn’t matter because nobody is going to take such a small amount of heroin to avoid the side effects of a cigar. It’s moot to do so.