My brother in Christ, what you said, is some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.
I ASSURE you, books are not as powerful as 5 tabs of acid.
No, it isn’t. No more than concentrating on anything else is. It’s kind of sad that so few people read books anymore that it’s perceived as being like a trance. What about daydreaming or watching a movie or playing a video game? Are those trances or like drugs? I’d say those are at least as if not more escapist than reading a book.
I’m in a deep trance while I’m reading your comment. No, wait, I’m sitting on the toilet doom scrolling…
Dude what is with this guy and his psychotic threads tonight?
“We should expose all of our private information because it becomes useless then and society will become a utopia”
“Don’t read, it’s actually drugs and bad for you”
Dude, take your fucking meds
Reading is a direct extension of oral storytelling, which is a defining human activity. So a better parallel would be to eating—and non-readers are the ones in an abnormal state, like being chronically malnourished.
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
If everybody’s doing it then nobody notices, of course. And the non-reader would become the suspicious deviant.
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
Have you heard of any evidence for that, or did you just make it up without thinking about how little sense it makes?
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
Would you care to elaborate on that? Seen from the outside it sounds quite… nonsensical but I may very well be too much of a reader myself to still be able to understand too complex notions. Or maybe I’m already dead?
I’m extending the metaphor of reading as drug.
That I understand (I can read ;)), what I don’t understand is how you manage to come to such an odd conclusion. Based on what?
If reading is like a drug. And a drug, consumed in large quantities, produces disease. Then reading, in large quantities, produces disease.
It’s logically straightforward.
If reading is like a drug. And a drug, consumed in large quantities, produces disease. Then reading, in large quantities, produces disease.
It’s logically straightforward.
Not any more than saying ‘if cold is hot than too much hot can freeze you to death’. As long as the premise is not true (not a fact) no valid conclusion can be made out of it.
In your situation, saying “if reading is like a drug” doesn’t magically turns reading into an actual drug (the ‘if’ part is key). It still is an hypothesis that need to be demonstrated/validated.
Ah, so it’s actually a retort that you wish to express. Specifically, “But reading isn’t like a drug!”
Well I disagree.
