How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.

The actual argument I made, that MycoBro’s personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.

I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.

“putting a foot on the ground”

You mean a ground invasion? Which they’ve already started. The bombing is just to minimise Israeli casualities.

You’re right, I would be very unhappy if a pig sexually assaulted a black man, even if it was it’s fetish.

I believe sexual relations should be consensual and between humans, I’m very conservative in that way.

No, I’m saying two things.

1. His anecdote is not sufficient to refute the claim that 9 times out of 10 you should cooperate with LE.
2. The user probably is a mushroom abuser, given the fact that they are a self-proclaimed marijuana abuser and have expressed interest in Psilocybin mushrooms.

These are two separate things, his anecdote probably being a lie makes his argument look worse but it is not necessary to show that it is insufficient. It would be an incorrect argument based solely on the first point.

I personally just find it humourous and incredulous that he supposedly spent 2 weeks in jail, because he totally wasn’t using Psilocybin mushrooms. You know Shiitakes are huge and pretty hard to confuse with Psilocybin, not to mention the fact that you can test them pretty easily. (They are also in tons of grocery stores, so it’s not exactly alien to everyday individuals).

I fail to see how this is an example of abuse. If someone is lying to you about evidence they have of a crime, then why would that induce a false confession? At worst you would plea guilty in court, when all the evidence (or lack of) would be presented.

This argument requires assuming that people are literally mentally incapable of knowing what they have done. They would have to be so susceptible to manipulation that they would accept any statement as true.

I can link conspiracist websites too. The fact that someone can buy a domain does not automatically confer credibility. I own a domain, does that mean that anything I post to it is automatically credible. If so then why wouldn’t anything I post to Lemmy sites be credible? Including this very own comment.

The outliers don’t make the rule.

On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?