In an ultimatum situation, how do you convince someone that occasional use is not the same thing as problematic habitual use? I will use an analogy just for simplicity: I like drinking coke, my friend sees me drinking it a lot and he has a moral opposition to it because of the high sugar/caffeine content, so he says I have to stop drinking it because I'm destroying my life/teeth/health/whatever. So anyway he says I can't drink it or he'll know about it and threatens to do all this shit if I drink it. Well, obviously I could stop drinking it if I want, it tastes so damn refreshing but its hardly even a psychological addiction, but why would I stop drinking it to prove a point? And more importantly, even if I submit to a test and see how long I can abstain, even though I wasn't going against values or moderation by formerly drinking it, it still won't change my friend's mind. Even if I stopped drinking coke for 3 years to show him I wasn't addicted, he would still condemn me if I started occasionally drinking it after those three years, arrange an intervention, send me to boot camp, etc. I hope nature of this dilemma seems somewhat clear. Just in case, here is a similar analogy: How would an atheist cold convince a priest with adamant views to at least discuss the possibility that God doesn't exist, and they have a rational debate, point-for-point? Even if someone was too stubborn to look into the logistics of an argument and you give them the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't you expect somebody who is going to look down on you with prejudice and "holier than thou" mentality to at least hear you out? In a relationship situation this is really sad and frustrating. We can't possibly eliminate everything we don't agree with or change things about others that we don't necessarily like, be it a physical aspect, a quirk or a lifestyle choice. Any insight would be MUCH appreciated.