3 ms·
>What do you lose by them taking something to make that easier? Going with your argument, one stands to lose on at least two fronts: 1. severe side-effects 2
by omginternets 10y ago
>What do you lose by them taking something to make that easier?
Going with your argument, one stands to lose on at least two fronts:
1. severe side-effects
2. potential long-term harm stemming from chronic use (as per the present article)
>Do you normally fix all of your other problems in the most difficult way?
This is disingenuous. The argument is that fixing depression sans medication is a better (= safer, more effective) way.
Granted, this argument is far from being obviously correct. Things also get murkier when we admit that there are various forms of depression, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you're arguing against a straw-man.
- lawnchair_larry 10y agoNeither 1 nor 2 answer the question. Why do you care if they do it? You suffer no side effects or long term harm.
- Gfdfgjjmbvcd 10y agoMaybe out of genuine concern for their fellow man, their suffering, and the possibility that parts of the medical establishment have perverse incentives. If you're arguing just to argue, you're an asshole. If you really feel that way then I feel sorry for you.
- omginternets 10y agoThey certainly do answer some of the questions you explicitly spelled out. As for the rest: 1. I generally care if people are being pushed towards (under|in)-effective treatments. I want people to be guided towards the safest and most effective treatments for ethical reasons. 2. I worry that there are misaligned incentives between the drug consumers and the drug suppliers.