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

Nov 2021
1
1
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
Aug 2021
155
92
Austin, TX
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