4 ms·

I dont think its a fallacy. Its definitely a consideration. Ever met an nmda receptor agonist addict? its real shit. It aint pretty. And ive definitely seen it

I dont think its a fallacy. Its definitely a consideration. Ever met an nmda receptor agonist addict? its real shit. It aint pretty. And ive definitely seen it done as a sort of depression-relief-addiction. Had a close friend who I found out had been drinking like 2 or 3 bottles of cough syrup (over the counter, dextromethorphan) daily. She had a hell of a time kicking it. Idk if she ever did. People on these type of drugs long term end up with severe memory issues, fogfy brained all the time, and if its ketamine add in a completely obliterated bladder. I dont think this is an idea that can be dismissed trivially as a fallacy.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> I dont think this is an idea that can be dismissed trivially as a fallacy. "Opiates are dangerous and they are anesthetics; therefore ketamine is dangerous because it's an anesthetic" is, literally, a textbook logical fallacy. If you'd like to argue that ketamine is dangerous based on some other reasoning, go ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that OP's logic is prima facie fallacious. > Ever met an nmda receptor agonist addict? I used to work in drug counseling, so, yes.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > "Opiates are dangerous and they are anesthetics; therefore ketamine is dangerous because it's an anesthetic" is, literally, a textbook logical fallacy. Except that I never made that exact argument. Textbook strawman fallacy.