you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 2 years ago (7 children)

You SHOULD fear alcohol and cigarettes, but from scientific reasons. Tarot is also unaceptable for a scientific mind.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Tarot cards have cool artwork on them, and they are as harmful as a RNG, or cootie catchers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Artwork is perfectly fine, but shaping your view about the reality and directing your life based on tarot is pure superstition and stupidity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's a random number generator. It's shuffled cards put in random order to tell a story, or focus someone on their own thoughts without distractions of self doubt. To bring order to a chaotic existence. Not all mysticism is superstition. Not all rituals are pointless, many attempt to bring people to a liminal state, an attitude of being in-between, standing at the threshold. We can keep the useful elements of these things and discard the rest. No one needs to base there life around anything they don't like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    You speak like a religious person because this is a superstitious ritual, have fun I guess but I think it's incredibly stupid.

    You might as well try to read your future in PUBG loot boxes. Probably cheaper, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You SHOULD fear alcohol

    I think fearing it is going a bit overboard. Moderation is the key.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Science says there is no healthy dose of alcohol - no moderation, but complete absence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Healthy for what, exactly? Because it certainly isn't incompatible with a long, good, moderately healthy life.

    I'm guessing if you want to perform at peak or reduce your risk of cancer as much as humanly possible, then sure. But that's probably the goal of a minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Yeah, it's a very technically correct wording of "We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is."

    There's nothing wrong with this statement.

    It's simply that the risks are in practice pretty negligible for the most part.

    The exact same sentence structure also works with "We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of driving. It doesn’t matter how much you drive – the risk to the driver’s health starts from the first kilometer on any public road. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drive, the more dangerous it is – or, in other words, the less you drive, the safer it is."

    I'm not sure on the statistics, but I'd guess if you compared the risks between drivers and drinkers at different segments of a normal distribution of drinking/driving quantity, driving would be more risky. I haven't checked, though. There would probably be a better way to compare the risks, I haven't looked at any of the statistics recently.

  • source
  • parent