How to wean a person from drinking alcohol. Part II. Teetotal fanatics

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Let's start with one rather painful problem of teetotalers who want to share with society their position in life in relation to alcohol.

Very often they behave overly fanatical (as, by the way, and vegans or supporters of some ecological movements), constantly pointing out how special they are and how great it is to be sober (not eating meat, sorting garbage, etc.), and often you can even find an arrogant position and attempts to exalt themselves against the background of the so-called "drinking cattle". This is an absolutely wrong position, which can only spoil good undertakings to sober people up. I will not say that such people cause a negative reaction in society - this is understandable, I will talk about what fundamental problems such a fanatical position have, due to which fanatics cannot fruitfully engage in sobering activities.

The main problem is that the logical argumentation of a sober lifestyle in an ordinary healthy lifestyle fanatic is exactly as weak as in a drinking person his argument in favor of cultural drinking. These teetotalers chose the path of sobriety, but cannot explain the reason for this choice. Most often, they are attracted by the opportunity to be "above the crowd" or "smarter than a herd of sheep", the opportunity to stand out from the gray mass, but not by the philosophy of a healthy lifestyle. All that fanatics know about sobriety is only fragmentary information about blood clots in blood vessels, about the harmful effects of alcohol on eggs, about damage to brain neurons, about a conspiracy theory, maybe some elements of statistics, etc., which is obvious not enough to overcome the equally fragmentary arguments of a culture drinker about the benefits of moderate wine consumption, that alcohol gives relaxation, that alcohol cleans blood vessels from cholesterol, etc., at worst, just "the doctor advised." Thus, a typical teetotaler fanatic, in terms of the strength of his argumentation, is as if on equal terms with culture drinkers: both of them cannot substantiate their position, but they have heard something somewhere. However, not all so simple…

The seeming equality of these positions actually hides a monstrous preponderance towards culture drinkers. There are several reasons for this, but I will name two of the most important for us.

The first reason … In fact, such a fanatical teetotaler plays into the hands of drinking people, by his behavior (which often takes on belligerent forms with foam at the mouth), his inability to argue his thoughts, the spread of false information (for example, unconfirmed overestimated alcohol mortality statistics or fictitious stories), he only discredits itself the idea of sobriety, presenting yourself and your colleagues as complete idiots or mentally ill people whom you don't want to be like. A drinking person, on the other hand, needs only this: to show in an open dispute the boring, inferiority and other weaknesses of the position of the anti-alcohol fanatic, putting it in a bad light ALL the idea of a sober lifestyle. At the same time, it does not matter that the drinker makes a logical error here in the form of a false generalization, it will not be visible in an emotional dispute between two opposite positions, where the winner is not chosen by common sense, but by the general opinion of the crowd watching the show. The drinker does not even need to present his arguments, he simply shifts the burden of proof to the fanatic, and the fool, foaming at his mouth, tells the crowd of ordinary people his fragmentary tales about how any drop of alcohol does something to the body. As a result, he looks like a fool, and the crowd of ordinary people rejoices that their position has not even faltered. Everything is pumped up by the fact that the crowd, laughing, amicably discussing the ridiculous position of a teetotaler who fell into a trap prepared for him.

The second reason concerns the less fanatical and more responsible teetotalers. The fact is that a good and honest person is limited in his argumentation only to the truth and verified information. Once he lies (even by accident), it can and will be used against ALL his conclusions immediately. A drinking person is usually not quite friendly with logic and common sense, all methods of dispute are available to him: from demagoguery to direct insults and imitation with distortions. His task is not to impose his position, but to defend it at any cost, so any methods will be used. A teetotaler, in order not to look like a clown, must adhere to moral methods and explain everything competently and clearly with evidence, or at least just speak convincingly. In general, this problem is known more widely as the problem of honest people: an honest person is severely limited by acceptable methods of work, while a dishonest person can “give in to his paw” somewhere, somewhere to slander, somewhere to steal or forge something, quickly achieving their goals. Yes, we know that in the end he makes things worse … but it is not only him that gets worse.

I have named two reasons why a culture drinker in a dispute with a teetotaler fanatic, all other things being equal, is in many times more advantageous positions in the dispute. One important rule follows from this.

So, important rule: if you really do not understand and cannot logically substantiate your moral position as a teetotaler, do not bother in a discussion with convinced culture drinkers. Firstly, you discredit the idea of sobriety by portraying yourself as ordinary sobriety fanatics, sectarians or in some other hard-hitting light. Secondly, you will suffer a crushing defeat, which can greatly affect you in a bad sense and even drive you into depression, or it can embitter all drinking people, which will also not lead to good. Thirdly, you will do the opposite: you will convince your opponents that their position is stronger than the position of sobriety. Remember, in spite of the fact that they do not have any significant arguments at all (like you), they have a monstrous advantage on their side in the form: “most drink”, “this is the tradition”, “the doctor advised”, “my grandfather was drinking for 70 years and alive and well”,“but you're just sick, so you can't drink”and - a hit of the generation -“the main thing is not to drink during pregnancy”. Not having behind your back a multiple advantage in the ability to harmoniously and logically prove your position and iron arguments, do not even try to go against the inhabitants who are firmly on their convictions. With your methods, you can only convince your close friend or girlfriend, and then if they do not yet have their own personal established opinion on this issue, or if you are a serious authority for them.

This directly follows another rule: never try to engage in public sobering activities at meetings, corporate parties, banquets and other drinking parties, to which people come with the tacit intention of drinking alcohol. If you have already come there for some reason, do not cling to people, do not humiliate or insult them, do not impose your opinion and do not try to give your fragmentary arguments. The maximum that can be done is to grab one person, take it aside and, very, very far away, sort of accidentally turn the conversation about the weather into a conversation about the dangers of alcohol. And then, in the event of the slightest danger to seem like a clown, you need to immediately switch to another topic, because this way you at least have a chance to influence a person later in a different environment, while imposing your position in such unobtrusive communication greatly reduces this chance.

So, the conclusions from the reflections of this part:

- teetotal fanatics are essentially no better than cultured drinkers. If the latter harm society by supporting this culture, then the former may actually well be immoral, degraded elements, only repulsive from the idea of sobriety by their odious persistence and their attitude towards people. In the fight against alcoholism, they are not only useless, but also harmful.

- If you just don’t drink, then great, but if you have embarked on the path of educational activity, please, please, first very well argue your own position, practice taking a punch in an argument with ordinary easily suggested people, stock up on a large set of useful (just useful) video and text materials confirming your conclusions. In short, to win, you need to have weapons that are an order of magnitude superior to the defense of the enemy. Otherwise, you will most likely "merge".

- Never and anywhere in the educational process do not present your temperance position as an advantage or an advantageous distinction. You can show this in a natural way in some real business, without artificially creating convenient situations for this. Remember that to each his own.

- Your morality should be high enough to understand a simple thing: while educating other people, you do it for the sake of being better for them, and not for the sake of self-affirmation or exaltation over them. You work for them, not for yourself. Otherwise, nothing will work.