hey
FnB's recent history had to do with rather excessive use of one particular NMDA antagonist. does fucking up with some drug in this case a pcp derivative, recognising the fuck up and dealing with it disqualify what someone has to say? No of course it doesn't.
OK. It doesn't disqualify what he has to say but it makes me think "this person used a particular NMDA antagonist rather excessively and found some way to rationalize as he took the drug over and over, I wonder what else this person would consider doing?"
He might as well huff toluene (paint thinner) excessively for arbitrary reasons.
I argue with myself all day long and throw all the counter arguments I can think of, ruminate over and counter back for hours on end based on the empirical evidence of myself and others. Much like playing chess, I've generally thought of all the counters and various perspectives that people throw at me and formed my beliefs accordingly. I understand people will have different opinions, that's fine just find happiness for yourself. I understand why everyone acts the way they do, why society is the way it is, and I'm not here to try to change any of that directly.
It's pretty rare amongst people I meet in daily life to present novel ideas, that's why I'm obsessed with learning as much as possible about subjects I do not understand (science-our environment) because knowledge is god. To understand as much as possible about this universe. I'm the type of person who can't stop thinking about why things are the way they are objectively, it drives me and keeps me up at night and I will stop at nothing to figure out as much as possible until the day I die.
I understand how people work, I'm not looking for friends on here. I cast my ego aside and make a person feel like a million bucks viewing the situation completely from their perspective when they are of interest to me in everyday life(objective knowledge) conveying palpable sincerity even if it means I have to take myself mentally to a past memory to come across sincere. But I'm not driven to be a businessman.
I don't care about anyones opinions or views, I just want facts...Mixing A and B together makes 60/40 mix C/D. I want no spin, and the guy whos life spiraled out of control has to find some way to rationalize his experience to keep himself out of depression or suicide, frankly I don't have time for the rationalization.
On the whole humans are pretty stupid worrying about stupid mundane shit, I know only a fraction of the population cares but that is more than enough.
You can argue anything, including NMDA antagonists and rationalize the experience. I'd argue if this was presented to the brightest minds around the world they could understand why he chose to use and wouldn't care, just meandering thru life like a vagabond searching for ones own bliss, but they would never mirror the behavior objectively.
People giving these skewed facts based on logic all have reason to skew the logic - to convince onesself that any drug is fine, to convince onesself that no long term harm is being done, to feel like they are not alone. If there's a study that says Drug A does not cause neurotoxicity and another study that says Drug A does...I don't care if 95% of the studies find it doesn't cause neurotoxicity, to then jump to conclude it's fact and brush the other 5% aside as "government propaganda" or whatever excuse is just plain criminal. If I test Drug A and find in 5% of subjects it causes neurotoxicity then I am stating that. People, stop taking scientific studies and facts that only back your opinion...thats just as narrow minded as the people who have the polar opposite view point that you hate so much.
Think about all the scientific studies that were "fact" 50 years ago. They aren't fact anymore. "Facts" are ever-changing.
It's sad but science has become almost as corrupt and subjective as every other aspect of human existence.
an aside: it is traditionally regarded that the first organic synthesis was urea by Wöhler in 1828, so you were only 80 years off with your guess of 1910, and a lot of the classic reactions you should have learnt in BSc chem, like for example the Hofmann and Curtius rearrangements, date from 1880's and 90's there is a whole world of chemistry pre 1910 maybe you should go leaf through Chemische Berichte and Annalen der Chemie and change your name to chemist1910, chemist2010 is like sooo last year
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
You're focusing on a pointless detail. The exact year of the first synthesis is irrelevant, the point was that the first synthesis was a VERY VERY short time ago compared to the existence of man.
I don't pay attention to the years these guys did these synthesis', all I want to know is the acquisition of knowledge from one synthesis to the next, specific processes so I can test it out myself and their rationale to arrive at the discovery in the first place. Building blocks of the synthesis so I can mess around with more complicated processes comparatively speaking. The first synthesis could have taken place in 1975, who cares? As long as the aggregate body of work from 1828-2010 is the same as 1975-2010 it doesn't make a difference.
You spend time memorizing crap for the sake of impressing people? It's about sifting through what's important and what's not.
And the fact that you believe that since I'm a semester away from a BS in chem I should know the specific dates for the synthesis of urea makes me wonder the highest level of education you have acquired?
That's a lower level thought process; the belief that a person with a degree in a subject knows much more than they actually do and inconsequential details at that. The most respected, seasoned MDs and scientists will tell you they hardly know anything at all. They just know more than everyone else -- which isn't much.
Thank you for your time.
And maybe I am now more or less immune to stimulant abuse.
