"But Rachel also has another hobby, one that makes her a bit different from the other moms in her Texas suburb—not that she talks about it with them. Once a month or so, after she and her husband put the kids to bed, Rachel texts her in-laws—who live just down the street—to make sure they’re home and available in the event of an emergency.
“And then, Rachel takes a generous dose of magic mushrooms, or sometimes MDMA, and—there’s really no other way to say this— spends the next several hours tripping balls.”
Nice strawmann Argument you got there
Heroin is literally as bad as Alcohol(in terms of damage). Shrooms are so goddamn safe, that it is literally impossible to overdose in them. You might have a real fucking bad time but you won’t Die from them. Aside from psychological risks shrooms don’t really do any damage to your body. When you’re ranking them with other drugs they are the safest out of all of them.
Source:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug
That’s not what a strawman argument is.
He said that shrooms are safer. You thought the argument he made was that shrooms use would lead to a decrease in cocaine and heroin use. They aren’t the same argument.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
And I did not do that.
I asked him if that’s what he was saying (and I honestly thought it might have been). I was asking for a clarification.
I didn’t misframe what he was saying and then refute it.