But why do you care what gsandi's reasons are for not taking drugs? Unless you are trying to convince him that he ought not to take drugs, then it shouldn’t matter what his reasons are for not taking them.
Why so certain? Unlike, say Salmoneus, for example, who is is quite capable of doing it well, his arguments were awful and could be taken to task on several grounds other than their poverty as reasons for why one ought to take drugs. In particular, as I was *quite clear*, I took issue with the very idea of "direct nervous system stimulation" being "unearnt" and wanted to see if he had anything more sensible to say on the issue. There are the seeds of some sensible reasons perhaps, but the way he went about it, particularly given the ""out"" that alcohol got in the *very same post*.
The second thing, worse than the first since I don't see any real hope for salvation in it, was his use of "synthetic" as a not-particularly-meaningful, but quite common -- even among the drug """user""" community, pejorative. This would be, as I put it, the most scientifically bankrupt part, but bankruptcy is no shame. If only there were some kind of technique developed to deal with this sort of thing, maybe one used for millennia???
And then, these two taking up perhaps a third of my original post each, the final third was a whimsical digression into the meaninglessness of music and a counter to the over-intellectualised consideration of it displayed hitherto. I expressed this a little clumsily, but I think there is something worthy in it, even divorced from the point I was trying to make of his awful definition of "earnt pleasure".
Behold, I bring three topics of varying interest to this delightful garden party of young and old, but instead it appears to be more entertaining to cry "STOP TELLING ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO, KID, I'M GONNA SIT OVER HERE AND DRINK THIS RED WINE RIGHT AT YOU
Was he saying why he doesn't take drugs, or why people in general shouldn't take drugs/you shouldn't take drugs? Trying to argue with him is appropriate behaviour for the latter, but churlish for the former. Now, if you think his statement was not just to express the meaning (or lack) of drugs in his life, but a coded way of saying that people shouldn't take drugs, then would you tell us what wording he can use in the future so as to state his rationales about his own life without provoking disagreement?
I am not sure this is as meaningful a dichotomy as you suggest. Quite obviously he could be taken as doing both at the same time.
Arguments stand as themselves and I was quite careful to, at least before actual arguments stopped being interesting, keep them at the centre of my reply and not focus on him. Since any real division is artificial, there are regions where rhetor and rhetoric become one -- you have shown this yourself in your own posts, though you were cowardly enough not to point fingers at me while saying so and so maybe got away with convincing yourself you were not shooting at anything in particular. In this respect the only "churlish" (interesting word choice, why did you pick it? It is hardly the most universal of vices nor the worst that I have been accused of) thing I said was that he was bankrupt -- and so he was! He decided to huff about this one (frankly) *easy target* and ignore the fact that he had nothing of substance there and therefore only the *illusion* of wisdom. Perhaps I am being unfair here, but he does not appear to be willing to stand by what he said, so he musn't value it so highly.
As for your final request, although I have already addressed that I do not see it so much as my being a Super Spy revealing a Secret Code where it turns out this guy giving reasons why he considers drug-taking *in the general* to be not worthwhile is actually secretly GIVING REASONS TO CONSIDER DRUG-TAKING IN THE GENERAL TO BE NOT WORTHWHILE (As you can see, that's simply a matter of reading through the plaintext for a second time and ignoring the particular case the reasons are being given -- a thing we can get away with since the arguments are so general), I think I have something worthwhile to say:
I am afraid that you are chasing a dream. The world is full of people who disagree with you and there is no magic word you can say to make them do otherwise. You could threaten to fire them, I guess, but patronage doesn't always work out that way, unfortunately. However, I do believe that trying to go through life avoiding this and acting like people who disagree with you are trying to rob you of your liberty, are discriminating against you on grounds of age, are faking it because they don't *really* care, are fucking you Machiavelliter
without even the excuse of your having given them a reason to fuck you, are only a small voice against the millions on your side etc. is a very poor idea. I discourage anyone from doing any of these in the strongest possible terms.