Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:32 am
Drugs taste and smell really bad for reasons, it's natures way of telling us to FO.
I think that you are using a very incorrect and fallacious application derived from many evolutionary phychologists. Saying that 'drugs taste icky' is a brush stroke far too big to begin with, but making an intuitive guess why something evolved in a certain way is not hard science. Evolutionary psychology is not a field that's taken too seriously for this reason.
What I did, was claim that it's probably ingrained in our psychology based on the evidence that it is in our relatives. Namely, the vervet monkeys and chimps.
he vast majority of animals, the vast majority of the time, heed the warning, but humans have sought the milder toxins out for some of their 'beneficial' or interesting properties.
Do animals in the wild consume drugs on purpose?
Occasionally perhaps they do, sometimes they get sick and die as a result, and sometimes they can handle it, but they're the exceptions to the rule, most animals avoid drugs/toxins most of the time.
Most animals yes, but when looking at our closest relatives which evolved around areas where ethanol is present, we find that they actively seek after it. We know it wasn't a desire brought on by man-made alcohol, because they even go after the wine created in fermented tree sap.
If there was as much drug legalization as anti drug legislature, drugs would be legalized, so I fail to see your point.
So you don't see how the fact that illicit drug usage carries such harsh penalties in the majority of countries reinforces my point that our legislature is very anti-drug? I meant when considering policies from all around the world, there are only a handful of countries that have decriminalized all drugs. Meaning, even in places like Portugual and Netherlands, drugs were once illegal. This speaks volumes.
I don't think I'm going this discussion with you for much longer. If you don't see how at least, legislature around the world tends to be lean very anti-drug, you're just willingfully blind, or don't know anything of foreign affairs. I believe you're filling in details as we go along the conversation, about things you don't really have that much understanding in. I know this phrase tends to be overused in online debate, but I genuinely believe you're making shit up.
Althou there's a fine line between recreational/medicinal, caffeine, in addition to booze and cigarettes, and big pharma go together like disease, and doctors, like fire, and firefighters, like police, and thieves, like terror, and the so called 'war on terrorism'.
Coffee's 'side', or negative effects are underestimated, at least by the general public, I've been arguing.
And it's not just coffee, you seem pretty pro drug in general.
I'm sure coffee's (in)directly causing a lot of psychiatric disorders, especially in immoderate and/or long term use, and millions of people are abusing it.
No, they really don't go together. Entirely separate companies with no relation to each other, and you're an extremely lazy debater who never wants to do what amounts to actual research, so you resort to a conspiracy in order to fill in the contradictions. A conspiracy which you, ironically, don't even have any reason to believe other than to appease your other beliefs.
I wouldn't call myself pro-drug, I'm just not an ideologue who make a judgement call assessed from black and white thinking. Some drugs are bad for many people, some are good for certain people, and even within those circumstances there's nuance and a caveat where it's not really my call to decide what someone should do with their own body.
I'm sure coffee is also helping a lot of psychiatric disorders.
