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.
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.
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.