6 ms·
It's not a "ridiculous position". It's a succinct rebuttal of a position that serves no purpose other than to grand stand. Evidence based perspectives are not i
by justinlaster 10y ago
It's not a "ridiculous position". It's a succinct rebuttal of a position that serves no purpose other than to grand stand. Evidence based perspectives are not intellectually dishonest.
>A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.
This is so vague. Ironic that you feel the need to claim I am being intellectually dishonest. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself compared to when I eat sugar? Based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is no. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself than when I drink coffee? Again, based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is probably no. In fact caffeine is more likely to be harmful to me for a multitude of reasons.
>group look bad by such poor arguments.
Meanwhile, the entirety of your statement is condensed down into "lol bad argument." Also, I don't actually smoke marijuana (I've tried it, it was "okay"), so your personal appeals are not only completely irrelevant and self-serving, they're useless as well.
You would do well to take all your charged criticism at my statement and apply it to your own; it fits it a bit better.
- AckSyn 10y agoIf you think "but everything alters your chemical makeup" is a sufficient rebuttal, you're mistaken for the outlined reasons above. There's simply no more to say about it and I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless debate over mind altering substances as a recreational outlet or how it "enhances your mind" when all it's proven is otherwise.
- justinlaster 10y ago>If you think "but everything alters your chemical makeup" is a sufficient rebuttal Considering that the original claim had no depth to it what so ever other than attempting to grandstand, it is odd you feel to have two completely different standards here. You have to point out why it isn't a sufficient rebuttal other than saying it doesn't. Time for some intellectual honesty. Or you can just blanket label people that consume certain things as having a "crutch" with absolutely no basis for such a claim. > when all it's proven is otherwise. Where's the evidence for this?
- AckSyn 10y agoDo any amount of research on it in reputable scientific papers and studies on the subject will get you an answer in short order.
- justinlaster 10y agoI'm finding the exact opposite? Do you have any concrete examples that you would care to provide in the spirit of intellectual honesty?