HomerianSymphony @ HomerianSymphony @lemmy.world

Goodbye. I"ve discovered Bluesky and it is 1000% less toxic and CIA-infeste

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

637

Joined

1 yr. ago

Do you have personal experiences with these substances, or are you just taking potshots at the internet based on decades of indoctrination?

Firstly, it sounds like you're the one taking potshots.

Secondly, that's a false dichotomy. You're saying people must either be drug users themselves, or else they must be "indoctrinated".

Thirdly, if you're going to dismiss people's points of view as being due to "indoctrination", I doubt I'm going to be able to change your mind. So have fun with that. I'm sure you're going to make a lot of great decisions in your life.

I'm not saying you're wrong to have opinions, just that opinions without a grounding in experience aren't worth much, in my book.

I don't think I actually expressed much of an opinion in that post.

But for what it's worth, my attitudes towards drugs are based on my own life's experiences. Why would you assume otherwise?

A

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion

And I did not do that.

He said that shrooms are safer. You thought the argument he made was that shrooms use would lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use. They aren't the same argument.

I asked him if that's what he was saying (and I honestly thought it might have been). I was asking for a clarification.

I didn't misframe what he was saying and then refute it.

I don't believe you [in gif form]

Alright, I'm blocking you.

There's no point in conversing with someone calling me a liar.

Just like writing an article about MDMA use doesn't mean that people are advocating for everyone to be high 247.

When I said applauding, I was refering to people in this thread, not the writer of the article.

And I didn't say driving drunk was okay.

Also, I feel like you're being unnecessarily hostile by repeatedly calling me ignorant and accusing me of pearl-clutching, and if you keep if up, I'm just gonna block you.

I have a bit of knowledge about this topic too, you know.

But one or two drinks is still intoxication. It might be very mild intoxication, but it is intoxication. You might not believe it, but actually, similarly responsible low dosage recreational use exists with other substances as well. [...] they're less harmful and less impairing than alcohol,

You said in another comment:

A basic recreational dose of MDMA or LSD would enhance my evening and I wouldn't be fit to drive a car

You're the one who said you wouldn't be fit to drive a car.

And I'm not trying to defend alcohol use, but after one or two drinks (depending on your body size), you can still legally drive a car.

(And this isn't some bizarre hypothetical. There are plenty of people who have a glass of wine with dinner, and that's it. They're not drinking for any of the intoxicating effects of alcohol.)

In any case, I still don't see how "it's less harmful than alcohol" means we should be applauding its use, unless you think that its use would result in less alcohol use.

And I know that an Ambien impairs a person more than a light recreational dose of LSD or ecstasy or shrooms.

And I doubt anyone would be cheering about increased Ambien use among Texas housewives.

It's still not a great situation. The sober person ends up looking after the intoxicated person. In an emergency, the sober person has to end up trying to deal with both the intoxicated person and the kids.

And it's not good for kids to see their parents being intoxicated (which can happen if the kids wake up). Kids need to feel that their caretakers are capable of looking after them.

I really don't see why she couldn't send her kids to the in-laws once a month.

(I also don't see why she couldn't just decide to stay sober. I guess her life is just so miserable?)

That's not what a strawman argument is.

The other point you made was "psychedelics aren't necessarily worse than alcohol or cannabis", and I feel like I already responded to a similar point elsewhere.

Getting drunk (or high) with children in the house is also not good. I would not expect that to be applauded either.

You mentioned "responsible" alcohol use. Getting drunk around your children is not responsible alcohol use.

People who drink responsibly either have a single drink or two and stop before they get intoxicated, or they go out and hire a babysitter, or they send the kids to the grandparents for the night.

(If you are "tripping balls" and unable to drive, you are intoxicated.)

I said nothing about legality or illegality.

Why don't they take the child to the in-laws? Waiting for an emergency is too late.

Even if they didn't, it is a child and not a ticking time bomb.

Children require and deserve a safe and predictable environment populated by responsible adults who can attend to their needs and adequately respond in an emergency.

mushrooms are pretty damn safe compared to doing cocaine, heroin,

Are you saying you think increased mushroom use will lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use?

Or is "better than heroin" the standard by which we decide substances should be applauded and encouraged?

Why are people applauding this? Is this a good trend? Is everyone saying “Yes, it’s great that Americans are taking more drugs”.

I feel like the reaction should be neutral at best, and more likely strongly negative (because there is a child in the house).

(And yes, getting drunk on alcohol with a child in the house is just as bad.)

How is this a positive thing? I’m honestly struggling to understand. Is the assumption that increased psychedelic drug use will be more than offset by a decrease in alcohol use? Are people interpreting this article as a sign of less stigma around drug use, and they believe a lessened stigma will have social benefits?

Are people applauding this because they see it as the individual standing against society, and they applaud individualism? Are they applauding it because they see it as a form of greater consumer choice? Do they believe recreational drug use is beneficial to the individual?

I know this will attract a deluge of downvotes, but I’m also hoping someone answers.

rolling out a sophisticated propaganda campaign designed to persuade disaffected Muslims to carry out terror plots in the U.S.

Sophisticated?

I'm pretty sure they could just say "Hey, you see those American bombs falling on Gaza?".

The military doesn't just teach them how to kill. It teaches them that it's okay to kill for political purposes.

They’ll both be disasters for the USA.

Trump will be a disaster because millions of Americans who are currently on the brink of poverty will sink into poverty under his policies, amplifying all kinds of social problems and civil unrest.

Harris will be a disaster because she will escalate unpopular military conflicts, overextending the military, further lessening the prestige of the US, and encouraging countries to de-dollarize.

The next four years are going to be rough. There’s no avoiding it.

So you're saying your comment was just violating our incivility rule?

Altaicist isn't an insult. I didn't say there was anything wrong with being an Altaicist. There are reputable linguists who are Altaicists.

I was just observing that the person I was talking to subscribes to the Altaicist hypothesis.

You know, this is the third comment I've made to you in the past half hour where I've had to correct your misframing of what I've said. Can you please stop twisting my words? It's starting to feel personal.

No, I was not agreeing.

I know. I'm not the one who claimed Turkish is related to Mogolian. The other guy said that.

Did you respond to the wrong person?