I'm not saying psychoactive = toxic. The word psychoactive simply describes any substance that alters or causes changes in the brain.
And I'm not saying "toxic" = harmful. That's the definition of the word. If you want to get really picky about it then sure, psilocybin is not "toxic" in and of itself, but it has toxic properties. Again, if it intoxicates, it has a toxicity level ... You can argue with me about this all you want, and you can say "...but that would require..." ... But if the question is, "Are psilocybin mushrooms toxic, yes or no," the answer is yes. Yes. Regardless of how much it would take to cause harm, regardless of any opinions you may have, you're arguing about the very definition of words here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the first sentence on the first site I found searching Google quickly on my phone (eMedicine):
Hallucinogenic mushroom toxicity is not a new phenomenon
|
What exactly is the problem here? Is it that you don't know what the word means, or is it that you disagree with the scientific and medical language surrounding the topic of substances and intoxication? You're acting like this is my argument, but I have zero investment in of any of this. I just don't know how to respond when you call my intelligence into question for saying that an intoxicant is toxic.
And for the record, I have read your posts, but when you imply that I'm saying something I've never said (by, say, pointing out that psychoactive and toxic are different things, as though I ever suggested anything to the contrary) I have a hard time caring about the rest of what you're writing. When you're entire premise is based on a misunderstanding, I want to nip that in the bud.