is there a word to describe this kind of argument logic / fallacy?

F

forlackofabettername

Nov 2021
2
2
australia
scenario: someone says us humans are nothing but disgusting drug junkies addicted to doping.
their reasoning for this is that the chemical rewards we receive from drugs (eg dopamine)
are the same chemicals that we obtain from more natural interactions in life

but it only sounds bad because they're coming at it from this sort of inverse angle, instead of viewing drugs as the perversion of nature,
they're viewing natures elements as impure as the stuff we get from the drugs

i feel like its partially "false equivalency", but it just feels like there
might be a more accurate word for it? like how it takes things back to front
 
  • Like
Reactions: Usedandabused
I

IveryKeys

Aug 2021
395
193
Texas, USA
It is an inaccurate argument. Perhaps the drugs are synthetic substitutes for naturally occurring hormones or pheromones, etc., but they are taken in doses much higher than they naturally occur. This same argument would say that you could live a healthy life by taking supplements instead of eating a healthy diet. Not an apples to apples argument...
Good luck with your logical argument,
Ivery
 
Phoenix

Phoenix

Jun 2020
62
38
Greece
forlackofabettername said:
scenario: someone says us humans are nothing but disgusting drug junkies addicted to doping.
their reasoning for this is that the chemical rewards we receive from drugs (eg dopamine)
are the same chemicals that we obtain from more natural interactions in life

but it only sounds bad because they're coming at it from this sort of inverse angle, instead of viewing drugs as the perversion of nature,
they're viewing natures elements as impure as the stuff we get from the drugs

i feel like its partially "false equivalency", but it just feels like there
might be a more accurate word for it? like how it takes things back to front
Click to expand...
What do you mean by back to front?
 
F

forlackofabettername

Nov 2021
2
2
australia
Phoenix said:
What do you mean by back to front?
Click to expand...
back to front as in they're taking the chemicals derived from drugs to say that the normal way of getting them is bad (because theyre the same rewards like dopamine). when really, the correct order is that the chemicals are good, but taking drugs for the natural rewards is an unnatural way. it's sort of perverting/blurring the lines in the order that the argument would make sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix
Phoenix

Phoenix

Jun 2020
62
38
Greece
forlackofabettername said:
back to front as in they're taking the chemicals derived from drugs to say that the normal way of getting them is bad (because theyre the same rewards like dopamine). when really, the correct order is that the chemicals are good, but taking drugs for the natural rewards is an unnatural way. it's sort of perverting/blurring the lines in the order that the argument would make sense
Click to expand...
I see...idk, sorry, all I know of is the false equivalency here.
 
Login or Register / Reply
Top Bottom