Togs said:
My god its like arguing with a brick wall...
And here I thought we were being kinda civil or something, my bad. Honestly I can't see how you are any different based on your arguments considering how quickly refutable they were. We just have and irreconcilable difference of opinion on the matter it seems- mine selfish, yours... whatever it is it isn't good for anyone's health.
Somniferum said:
Sorry, I don't really want to take this even further off-topic, than it already is, so I will keep this as short as possible. Which might make it very simplistic and blunt, but it is actually very simple:
It's not how I or anyone set their standards. It's how our brain(-chemistry) works. There are drugs that trigger the brains reward centre so heavily, that - objectively - nothing can compete.
(Here I had something that agreed with and praised your analysis, but was really awkwardly worded, so I took it out, but I still do feel that way.) Sure, it's reasonable to think that quantifiablely nothing makes that level of reaction, but that is a temporary and not innately reproducible feeling- like remembering a feeling of accomplishment; it's not quite the same level, but it can produce over and over again. The other problem is the other side of the coin, the side just as ugly as the other is wonderful. Downs after those kinds of highs are immensely under-considered because, going right along with your chemistry argument, your reward and pleasure centers will be fried off their rockers if you hit that kind of level and nothing else will kick in to mitigate that like when the brain itself triggers it. If it comes from a non-induced source, then other parts act up to prevent a fall or cut themselves short to do the same/whatever.
Gah, that's a long way of saying, "Yes, you are right about the objective heights it can help you achieve, but that does no good when that costs you your parachute."
And we are off-topic, idn't we? Well, I started it anyways.