>Objectively worse performance in life and in mentally taxing work.
Very interesting! I'd love to learn more. Please show us the data supporting this assertion.
>Go smoke a massive bong hit then do a calculus exam and compare your score.
I don't smoke, so I took a cannabis edible or vaped some concentrate. My calculus exam score improved. Now what? You still haven't provided any evidence for your claim that cannabis is objectively neurotoxic.
"Objective" is not a synonym for "strongly-held opinion"
> Very interesting! I'd love to learn more. Please show us the data supporting this assertion.
You can't demand a study/citation for someones personal experience. That is absurd. You are being an absolutely illogical clown.
I was talking about my opinion and direct personal experience. I explained this multiple times but you are incapable of understanding this basic concept.
"Objective" means observable and measurable. Are you genuinely so clueless that you believe no one can perceive anything objective about their own performance and abilities and actions in the external world?
Please stop insulting me, thanks. I will ignore your hostility for now.
>You can't demand a study/citation for someones personal experience. That is absurd.
Personal experience is subjective. I am not questioning your subjective experience, because that would indeed be absurd.
What I am questioning is your claim that cannabis is objectively neurotoxic. I am asking you to substantiate your claim about this supposed objective fact.
Where is the evidence? Show us.
>Objective" means observable and measurable.
Correct. Observable AND measurable. Observing is not enough to claim something as an objective fact. Where are your measurements about these observations? Where is the evidence about the "objectively neurotoxic" effects of cannabis?
>Are you genuinely so clueless that you believe no one can perceive anything objective about their own performance and abilities and actions in the external world?
Perception is inherently subjective. Feelings are not facts.
You are welcome to perceive all sorts of things, but that doesn't make these perceptions factual, objective, or even grounded in consensus reality. Some people perceive that the Earth is flat. Does that make Flat Earth an objective fact? Obviously not, because we can disprove these perceptions with concrete replicable measurements using instruments that do not wholly depend on the fallible perceptions of humans.
You keep using the word objective without any evidence, and when questioned about it you deflect by saying it's a subjective observation. Which one is it?
This entire conversation feels crazy-making. What I am trying to explain to you is the scientific method, something most children learn in grade school.
>If I smoke weed, and it causes cognitive impairment such that I am unable to perform certain tasks (such as driving, or my job) or it causes psychosis, then that is an objective observable result.
"Cognitive impairment" is not shorthand for "neurotoxicity"
>Have you ever experienced an extremely bad hangover? Would you say that was obviously neurotoxic or not?
It has already been proven that alcohol kills brain cells. The hangover is caused by the direct effects of ethanol and acetaldehyde (its primary metabolite).
There is no evidence that cannabis kills brain cells. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
You are claiming there is evidence of cannabis neurotoxicity, that cannabis kills brain cells. Where is the evidence for that? Despite what you may believe, being stoned is not a type of brain damage.
> Despite what you may believe, being stoned is not a type of brain damage.
Schizophrenia and psychosis in general is not "getting stoned". That outcome strongly indicates neurotoxicity.
Apologies for the harsh confrontational tone in my previous comments.
Here's a point I was trying to make earlier:
The statement: "Led Zeppelin is better than the Beatles" is subjective because it expresses an opinion that is open to interpretation.
The statement: "I have a preference for Led Zeppelin versus the Beatles" is objective, because it is a statement of fact about your personal experience, and is not subject to interpretation or debate. It also doesn't require "data" or cited research.
Yes, that's the subjective part, but you also argued that it is objectively neurotoxic. Where is your evidence for that? Where is the objectivity?