Stewart, you are making an assertion. You are asserting that my assertion is wrong. And then you're demanding me to research the case to prove you wrong. When I've got some spare time, maybe, but so far all I've got is quite a large personal sample of anecdotal evidence. What have you got?
Given how widespread the adult love of alcohol is, if it were actually innate in some way, I'd expect at least some children to display it. NONE have, in my experience.
And no, Daniel, I haven't given any children alcohol (well, ok, 16 is technically a child). But I've observed them asking for it off their parents over the 37 years I've been alive and I've never yet seen a taker, with the exception of extremely sweet alcohol. That I have seen children return to. I feel the sweetness throws out that data a little, since it's obvious that children like sweet things. Is anyone going to ask me for scientific evidence of that?
Emma, fine. You're genuinely outraged. I don't know how or why, and I don't care. I will continue to discuss it and you are most welcome to rejoin whenever you like. But if you snipe at me in an angry way again, be assured that it will not deter me from continuing to argue about this highly abstract topic in the polite way that I have done so far. I am not trying to cast anything on you, and if you think I am, then point out where or consider that you may be mistaken.
it's your argument to & so up to you to provide evidence (other than the anecdotal stuff proffered thus far).
I'm not sure who died and made you God of who has to supply evidence. This is not a courtroom. A well formed case has a negative and an affirmative and both sides need evidence. I'm not a scientist nor a journalist and I don't have time to waste searching for any more evidence than the (so far) 100% observations I have made of the hundreds of children I have come into contact with and seen that they are disgusted by alcohol. If you have some contrary evidence how about you lead the way and supply it to the standards you want to hold me to.
I don't expect to change your mind Ben but this is not correct.
You might be surprised. If you have a good case, my mind is totally changeable. I change my mind about things every day.
There is sweet FA evidence to show alcohol in small doses does humans harm..........So your evolutionary argument is without basis Ben.
Right, but in moderate to large doses it can kill, and those doses are not very high, with alcohol in concentrated form. Furthermore, even a small dose intoxicates you, which is a survival disadvantage right there. Having your reflexes slowed even a little bit in nature can be harmful. Why is it that no other animal will drink it unless it's been watered down, or added to something they really want to eat or drink? They may taste it occasionally, and if they are really thirsty they will drink it, but put it next to a full bowl of water and see which one gets drunk first.
Dogs are different perhaps. They eat shit. Perhaps they do actually like the taste.
I think you're right about alcohol actually being a safer drink for primitive peoples. It's easier to keep it sanitary for long periods. That may be another explanation for it's persistence, but I don't think it rules out the idea that getting pissed is something that people have always liked, ever since they had any kind of comparative safety at all from the dangers of being pissed.
And yes, evolutionary arguments are waffle. Nothing can be proved by them. They are insightful at best.
Yup, so what?
Because that would mean they have different tastes from me.
Again, so what? What bearing does that have on what we were talking about? I have never denied people have different tastes. I've just said some tastes are trained, alcohol being one of them. It's really a small point and I'm surprised you're disputing it.
Of course it isn't. You said people only like alcoholic beverages because of the alcohol, because they're intoxicating. Ergo, by your reasoning, the more alcoholic something is, the more they should like it. This clearly isn't the case.
Nor did I say it. There's no ergo, and it is an argumentum ad absurdum. You're trying to extract my principle and take it to an absurd extreme.
You're not actually listening to anything people are saying, you're just repeating 'it's yucky' over and over again until, I assume, you 'win' by sheer persistence.
Calm down, and quit it with the faux outrage. I'm not trying to 'win' anything, just responding to your questions. If you don't want response don't ask a question. I'm not trying to say who you are, or commenting on your sexuality or any bloody thing personal about you at all. I'm arguing a case. If you don't like the case, please address the case and leave out all the ad hominems.
Stewart, how about you produce one child who did like alcohol from the first nip.
I don't really get your coffee point at all. Can you make it clearer? Are you trying to tell me that you spontaneously suddenly discovered a like for the taste of black coffee, but have never felt a coffee buzz at all? Perhaps you feel the reverse, the 'no-coffee-low'? Removing discomfort feels the same as comfort, you know.
I wouldn't put coffee in the same class as alcohol though. It's nowhere near as toxic.
James, I agree that there are possible basic drivers to our tastes. Indeed I'm saying that alcohol is in the basically yucky class. But there is no doubt you can train yourself to like just about anything. Some people like intense pain. Others like fear, or horror, or getting beaten up. I would suggest that usually there is a reason outside of normal human tastes for such preferences.
Sigh ... and why, pray tell, do cafes continue to successfully sell lattes and flat whites? Perhaps some people prefer them?
Yup, so what?
So why don't people prefer Chardon to Macs, then? It's got more alcohol in it. And how come people prefer one alcohol beverage over another but that varies completely from person to person?
Not sure why you're asking me this. Is it some kind of argumentum ad absurdum?
And note (although this should not need to be noted) that I did not call you a freak. I said you trained your tastes OR you are a freak. I think the first case is more likely by nearly 100%. I don't know if you are actually a freak who as a child would have supped down beer and liked it. You tell me. Your sexuality has nothing to do with this.
Losing a taste for sweet may be quite normal and nothing to do with training. I don't know about this. Adults have different dietary needs to children. But training is surely a factor, as it is with all tastes.
Slow down there, buddy. Someone who does not share your palate is a "freak"? That's just silly.
No, it's just a simple observation that basically no children like the taste of alcohol, nor do people who have never tasted it before. And there is a very simple reason for that, it is poisonous. It causes your body damage. Therefore it is a trained taste, not innate.
I doubt you would have ever learned to drink something as nasty and bitter as straight expresso, if coffee did not also alter your consciousness in a pleasant way. You put milk in your coffee originally for a reason, because I'm sure when you tried it without you didn't like it. You say you 'discovered' that you like it on it's own. I put it to you that your tastes actually changed as you became accustomed to that which you originally did not like.