I can guarantee you that my view of heavy drinking is different than yours and I was a "light weight" compared to many I knew in the Corps.
And I can guarantee you that my view of what is sexually obscene is quite different than yours. But like they say, maybe we can't define pornography but I know it when I see it.
You should not talk about people being desperate when this is how far you have to stoop to disparage a man.
Dude, stop being an insecure little *****. You think that post was some kind of personal insult? How the **** would anyone around here know you used to be a drunk, until a moment ago when you told everyone? Looks like someone is holding in secret shame about their half a six pack a week habit. That's a common sign for functional alcoholics. Either go cry to a shrink or man the **** up.
This post is awesome on a few levels.
First is you defining functional alcoholic as three beers over seven days. Holy shit.
Second was your porn reference and how you’d know it when you see it. Which based on your definition of alcoholism I would think to you porn is a kiss on the cheek. And this from a Stormy Daniels super fan.
It's nice to be appreciated. Unfortunately, your comprehension is a 100% failure. Probably on purpose. Partly on purpose. You're probably also that damn stupid.
Being an alcoholic isn't really about the amount of consumption, it's more about the
need to drink. Functional alcoholics may not be especially heavy drinkers, but they persistently rely on drinking as a vital coping mechanism. That tends to correlate with a deep down recognition that one cannot
stop. They may limit their drinking, but they cannot actually end their drinking. They often make excuses that include denying the severity of their drinking, often saying "I only drink the expensive stuff because I'm an aficionado." They often lie or downplay the extent of their drinking, but can become instantly angry when their drinking is is called into question.
The I'll know it when I see it line was a reference to
Jacobellis v Ohio Supreme Court case, which made the line famous. The implication being that, while there may be some subjective wiggle room in differing perceptions of certain standards, that does not invalidate the concept outright, nor does it entertain expanding the concept to so wide a range that it becomes meaningless.
Oh, who am I kidding? You don't understand any of that. Here, let me put this in terms you can understand: