.

[_Some Schmo]

This is a false analogy. I am not claiming to be 'so insightful about drugs'. You're changing the subject. I am talking about the demonstrable fact that hallucinogens (specifically), are not used by scientists as part of the normative process of scientific investigation in order to increase their cognitive abilities or gain insights under the influence which would otherwise be unavailable to them.

We still have absolutely no scientists who currently recommend taking LSD or any other hallucinogens as part of the normative process of scientific investigation. Not even ten. Nor do we have more than two who have obtained any significant insights into their field of study by taking hallucinogens.

But I find it extremely odd that you would even insinuate that people cannot be insightful about drugs without ever having taken them. I would like to introduce you to the scientific method of investigation, which involves hypothesis, experiment, and the accumulation of data which is then analyzed and from which conclusions are then drawn. Your average corner pharmacist knows a great deal about a great many drugs which he has never taken in his life. How could this be, do you think? Perhaps he learned it through some other process, do you think?

I have two friends in the pharmaceutical industry. Their company actually specialises in psychotropics, sedatives, SSRIs and related medication. They both have a great deal of knowledge about these drugs and their effects. And yet they have not taken them. How could this be? Could it be that there exists a body of knowledge regarding this medication, which people can actually access and learn from, without ingesting the medication itself?

Could it be that there are teams of people called something like 'scientists' who conduct research based on other people taking this medication, and draw accurate conclusions from the results? Do you think that's remotely possible?

You may have been talking about the scientific community, but I wasn't. I was talking about your obvious bias against drugs in general. You're the one who wants to change the subject.

It doesn't at all surprise me that you'd "find it extremely odd that you would even insinuate that people cannot be insightful about drugs without ever having taken them." In fact, I strongly expected it of you, given what you've said so far. As I predicted, your response was fascinating. I'm sure it's a fantastic justification for your opinion, in your own mind. It does not, however, qualify you to speak with any kind of authority on the subject.

A pharmacist can know the documented affects of one drug or another, but it doesn't give him the insight to know what taking those drugs is really like without doing it him/herself. Sorry.

But you keep reading your books and websites and claim expertise as a result of it. Whatever floats your boat.

[Rikiti]

.

[Rikiti]

.

[_Fortigurn]

You may have been talking about the scientific community, but I wasn't.

I know you weren't. You were in fact avoiding the issue I had raised. That's why a lot of what you wrote was irrelevant.

I was talking about your obvious bias against drugs in general. You're the one who wants to change the subject.

What 'obvious bias against drugs in general'? I am not changing the subject at all. The initial claim was that hallucinogens provide insights into the reality of the world which are unobtainable through our normal senses, with our sense perception unaltered. It was further claimed that these insights include scientific truths which could not otherwise be discovered. Two examples were given to support the case.

I have been probing the veracity of this case. To date, it hasn't stood up very well to inspection.

I'm sure it's a fantastic justification for your opinion, in your own mind.

Exactly what do you think my opinion is, and what do you think I'm justifying?

It does not, however, qualify you to speak with any kind of authority on the subject.

I am not speaking as an authority on the subject. All I am doing is simply bringing to this forum the facts resulting from decades of scientific research and personal use of these hallucinogens by a wide range of individuals. Those facts directly contradict the case which has been made here. If you have any evidence to support the original case, please present it.

A pharmacist can know the documented affects of one drug or another, but it doesn't give him the insight to know what taking those drugs is really like without doing it him/herself. Sorry.

I agree. Fortunately he doesn't have to. That's what interviews are for. And the point is that for the purpose of the scientific investigation I am discussing, interviews are all that is required.

But you keep reading your books and websites and claim expertise as a result of it. Whatever floats your boat.

Not only have I never claimed personal expertise, I have specifically disavowed it. Please don't misrepresent my case or my arguments. Just address the issue at hand please.

[_Some Schmo]

Wonderful.

Let’s review, shall we? I read the thread and made the observation, “I just love how it appears that the least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs are the people who are also the most adamantly against them. Shocker!” I didn’t reference anyone in particular; I simply made a general comment about people.

However, for some reason, you decided to quote this and took issue with it, saying, “Well you would expect that. Fortunately I'm not one of the 'least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs'. Have you spent any time at erowid?” I wonder why you would do this. Did you perhaps think I was talking about you?

So, since you answered me, I decided to gauge your practical knowledge of drugs by asking, “Have you spent any time on LSD?”

You came back saying it was irrelevant. It might have been irrelevant to your case about scientists using it for research, for which I have no opinion, incidentally, but it was entirely relevant to the sub-thread we’ve had so far in our side conversation.

In review, I said people against drugs are generally the most ignorant about them, you took exception, I called you on your experience, you admitted ignorance and proved my point, case closed. I will not get sidetracked by your little crusade against drugs used by science. I don’t give a damn about it.

How's that for addressing the issue at hand?

[_Fortigurn]

Wonderful.

Let’s review, shall we? I read the thread and made the observation, “I just love how it appears that the least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs are the people who are also the most adamantly against them. Shocker!” I didn’t reference anyone in particular; I simply made a general comment about people.

However, for some reason, you decided to quote this and took issue with it, saying...

I took issue with it partly because it is an unhelpful generalisation, and partly because it seemed particularly pointed towards those of us who take a view different to yours, and who have no practical experience of drugs.

I wonder why you would do this. Did you perhaps think I was talking about you?

No, not about me specifically, but myself along with others.

So, since you answered me, I decided to gauge your practical knowledge of drugs by asking, “Have you spent any time on LSD?”

But my practical knowledge of drugs is utterly irrelevant to anything in this thread.

You came back saying it was irrelevant. It might have been irrelevant to your case about scientists using it for research, for which I have no opinion, incidentally, but it was entirely relevant to the sub-thread we’ve had so far in our side conversation.

Exactly what do you think that sub-thread is? If you think that the sub-thread is my personal knowledge of drugs, then yes your question is still irrelevant. People don't need a practical experience with drugs to be informed about them. There's a reason why people go to their local pharmacist or GP for informed and intelligent information on both medication and illicit drugs, instead of to their local drug addict. The pharmacist and GP will undoubtedly, unquestionably, and without doubt know a good deal more them than the local illicit user.

I will not get sidetracked by your little crusade against drugs used by science.

I haven't been engaged in any 'crusade against drugs used by science'.

How's that for addressing the issue at hand?

You didn't. But I expected that.

[_Some Schmo]

Wonderful.

Let’s review, shall we? I read the thread and made the observation, “I just love how it appears that the least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs are the people who are also the most adamantly against them. Shocker!” I didn’t reference anyone in particular; I simply made a general comment about people.

However, for some reason, you decided to quote this and took issue with it, saying...

I took issue with it partly because it is an unhelpful generalisation, and partly because it seemed particularly pointed towards those of us who take a view different to yours, and who have no practical experience of drugs.

I wonder why you would do this. Did you perhaps think I was talking about you?

No, not about me specifically, but myself along with others.

So, since you answered me, I decided to gauge your practical knowledge of drugs by asking, “Have you spent any time on LSD?”

But my practical knowledge of drugs is utterly irrelevant to anything in this thread.

You came back saying it was irrelevant. It might have been irrelevant to your case about scientists using it for research, for which I have no opinion, incidentally, but it was entirely relevant to the sub-thread we’ve had so far in our side conversation.

Exactly what do you think that sub-thread is? If you think that the sub-thread is my personal knowledge of drugs, then yes your question is still irrelevant. People don't need a practical experience with drugs to be informed about them. There's a reason why people go to their local pharmacist or GP for informed and intelligent information on both medication and illicit drugs, instead of to their local drug addict. The pharmacist and GP will undoubtedly, unquestionably, and without doubt know a good deal more them than the local illicit user.

I will not get sidetracked by your little crusade against drugs used by science.

I haven't been engaged in any 'crusade against drugs used by science'.

How's that for addressing the issue at hand?

You didn't. But I expected that.

Oh, but I did. I just didn't address the issue you wanted me to address. As far as I'm concerned (and given the only involvement I've had in this thread) it was the only issue at hand for me to address, and I did it precisely.

In other words, I hijacked the thread and you came along for the ride, except you're still left wondering why it hasn't touched down at what you thought was your original destination.

[_Fortigurn]

Oh, but I did. I just didn't address the issue you wanted me to address. As far as I'm concerned (and given the only involvement I've had in this thread) it was the only issue at hand for me to address, and I did it precisely.

You didn't address either the issue I wanted you to address, or the issue you raised. That's the problem.

In other words, I hijacked the thread and you came along for the ride, except you're still left wondering why it hasn't touched down at what you thought was your original destination.

That's just empty chest beating. You initially tried to address the first issue, but couldn't. Then you tried personal attacks on me, alleging I was claiming personal expertise (I wasn't). You then attempted to change the subject to one on which you thought you could make a winning argument, but the one argument you raised on that subject was an argument I demonstrated to be equally irrelevant to your first. You resorted again to personal attacks on me, and repeated your allegation that I had made claims of personal expertise. That's it.

At no time did you demonstrate any particular independence of thought, or relevant rational argument.

[_Some Schmo]

Oh, but I did. I just didn't address the issue you wanted me to address. As far as I'm concerned (and given the only involvement I've had in this thread) it was the only issue at hand for me to address, and I did it precisely.

You didn't address either the issue I wanted you to address, or the issue you raised. That's the problem.

In other words, I hijacked the thread and you came along for the ride, except you're still left wondering why it hasn't touched down at what you thought was your original destination.

That's just empty chest beating. You initially tried to address the first issue, but couldn't. Then you tried personal attacks on me, alleging I was claiming personal expertise (I wasn't). You then attempted to change the subject to one on which you thought you could make a winning argument, but the one argument you raised on that subject was an argument I demonstrated to be equally irrelevant to your first. You resorted again to personal attacks on me, and repeated your allegation that I had made claims of personal expertise. That's it.

At no time did you demonstrate any particular independence of thought, or relevant rational argument.

Oh really? Well then, clearly, you either don't know how to read, or you are so blusteringly stubborn in your own limited world view that you can't see the forest for the trees. Either way, it matters little to me. Everything you've accused me of here could easily be said about you ("empty chest beating" particularly), and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, would it? Perhaps you even make these statements because you actually do think this crap of yourself, for all I know. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

by the way, for a person who claims faith, you'd do well to not accuse others of not demonstrating "any particular independence of thought" Mr. Bible literalist. Faith and thought are mutually exclusive. Just a heads up for you there.

Oh, and your signature is pretty funny. I can only imagine the pseudo-criteria you've used to accumulate those "statistics."

LMAO

[Rikiti]

.