Moderator: Community Team
Valium and all its siblings differ in trivial and inconsequential ways. You can blather on forever, and it won't change this.Symmetry wrote:What is this? Admit that you were wrong, and move on. Your OP still says that Valium and Xanax are the same drug. They are not.Dukasaur wrote:LOL @ Sym. Posts an article backing up what I said. Continues to tell me I'm wrong.
I share your concerns about drug misuse. I just would like you to correct the misinformation that you've been posting.
They are "fundamentally" the same. If you were given the formula for Xanax and Valium, we wouldn't be able to predict the differences without experiments, we could only predict the similarities. They both react with the same receptors in the body, in much the same way.Symmetry wrote:
The differences are not trivial- they are fundamentally different
No, they are not fundamentally the same. I notice that you deleted the ways in which they are different:DoomYoshi wrote:They are "fundamentally" the same. If you were given the formula for Xanax and Valium, we wouldn't be able to predict the differences without experiments, we could only predict the similarities. They both react with the same receptors in the body, in much the same way.Symmetry wrote:
The differences are not trivial- they are fundamentally different
Fundamentally, they are the same chemically; in that the only way we know about the significance of the compound is from its impact on human receptors. Fundamentally, the application and effect are the same.Symmetry wrote:No, they are not fundamentally the same. I notice that you deleted the ways in which they are different:DoomYoshi wrote:They are "fundamentally" the same. If you were given the formula for Xanax and Valium, we wouldn't be able to predict the differences without experiments, we could only predict the similarities. They both react with the same receptors in the body, in much the same way.Symmetry wrote:
The differences are not trivial- they are fundamentally different
1) Chemically
2) Legally
3) In application
4) In effect
These are not trivial matters of semantics.

pancakemix wrote:Quirk, you are a bastard. That is all.
No, chemically they are different: "C17H13ClN4" vs "C16H13ClN2O"DoomYoshi wrote:Fundamentally, they are the same chemically; in that the only way we know about the significance of the compound is from its impact on human receptors. Fundamentally, the application and effect are the same.Symmetry wrote:No, they are not fundamentally the same. I notice that you deleted the ways in which they are different:DoomYoshi wrote:They are "fundamentally" the same. If you were given the formula for Xanax and Valium, we wouldn't be able to predict the differences without experiments, we could only predict the similarities. They both react with the same receptors in the body, in much the same way.Symmetry wrote:
The differences are not trivial- they are fundamentally different
1) Chemically
2) Legally
3) In application
4) In effect
These are not trivial matters of semantics.
Fundamentally, they are both controlled substances and so the legal status is the same.
I have no idea, but it seems like you want to tell a story.DoomYoshi wrote:How do you think drug discovery works?
Imagine it's 1956. What can you tell me about valium or xanax?
I already told it.Symmetry wrote:I have no idea, but it seems like you want to tell a story.DoomYoshi wrote:How do you think drug discovery works?
Imagine it's 1956. What can you tell me about valium or xanax?
Often times the nazi rat can not recognize one direction from at which end it entered the maze.DoomYoshi wrote:How do you think drug discovery works?
Imagine it's 1956. What can you tell me about valium or xanax?
New drugs, you say? Hmm. That would suggest that they are different from old drugs. Something developed from an old thing is not the same as its origin.DoomYoshi wrote:I already told it.Symmetry wrote:I have no idea, but it seems like you want to tell a story.DoomYoshi wrote:How do you think drug discovery works?
Imagine it's 1956. What can you tell me about valium or xanax?
Valium was becoming popular, so scientists started looking at drugs that are fundamentally the same in order to discover new drugs. If they weren't fundamentally the same, they don't often get discovered, until there is a new breakthrough.
Things can be different and still fundamentally the same. You and I are both different, yet fundamentally human. I would treat you different than I would treat a potato. That's how language and our language-infused reality works. We classify things into categories. You can make categories arbitrarily small - every pill is its own drug; or arbitrarily large - all chemicals are made up of protons and are therefore fundamentally the same. Or you can take the fun road and disagree on issues of semantics until somebody loses an eye.Symmetry wrote:New drugs, you say? Hmm. That would suggest that they are different from old drugs. Something developed from an old thing is not the same as its origin.DoomYoshi wrote:I already told it.Symmetry wrote:I have no idea, but it seems like you want to tell a story.DoomYoshi wrote:How do you think drug discovery works?
Imagine it's 1956. What can you tell me about valium or xanax?
Valium was becoming popular, so scientists started looking at drugs that are fundamentally the same in order to discover new drugs. If they weren't fundamentally the same, they don't often get discovered, until there is a new breakthrough.
Next up, "all antibiotics are the same", courtesy of DY.
No, you're simply wrong. Chemicals are not made up of protons and are not fundamentally the same.DoomYoshi wrote:Things can be different and still fundamentally the same. You and I are both different, yet fundamentally human. I would treat you different than I would treat a potato. That's how language and our language-infused reality works. We classify things into categories. You can make categories arbitrarily small - every pill is its own drug; or arbitrarily large - all chemicals are made up of protons and are therefore fundamentally the same. Or you can take the fun road and disagree on issues of semantics until somebody loses an eye.
Name one chemical that doesn't have protons.Symmetry wrote:No, you're simply wrong. Chemicals are not made up of protons and are not fundamentally the same.DoomYoshi wrote:Things can be different and still fundamentally the same. You and I are both different, yet fundamentally human. I would treat you different than I would treat a potato. That's how language and our language-infused reality works. We classify things into categories. You can make categories arbitrarily small - every pill is its own drug; or arbitrarily large - all chemicals are made up of protons and are therefore fundamentally the same. Or you can take the fun road and disagree on issues of semantics until somebody loses an eye.
Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_structure
I promise you won't lose an eye reading it.
Name one that is made up of protons.DoomYoshi wrote:Name one chemical that doesn't have protons.Symmetry wrote:No, you're simply wrong. Chemicals are not made up of protons and are not fundamentally the same.DoomYoshi wrote:Things can be different and still fundamentally the same. You and I are both different, yet fundamentally human. I would treat you different than I would treat a potato. That's how language and our language-infused reality works. We classify things into categories. You can make categories arbitrarily small - every pill is its own drug; or arbitrarily large - all chemicals are made up of protons and are therefore fundamentally the same. Or you can take the fun road and disagree on issues of semantics until somebody loses an eye.
Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_structure
I promise you won't lose an eye reading it.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Hey Neo, I don't really understand how we got here, but we're on page 2 of me asking Duk to correct a mistake he made in the OP.Neoteny wrote:Logarithmic peasantry in this thread and yet no mention of pharmacodynamic variability?
Oh wait we're talking physics now?
Indeed.HitRed wrote:
Here is the fucked up thing about all that... it’s all true Nazi shit.King_Herpes wrote:Often times the nazi rat can not recognize one direction from at which end it entered the maze.DoomYoshi wrote:How do you think drug discovery works?
Imagine it's 1956. What can you tell me about valium or xanax?
In this scenario, the nazi lab rat desperately wants to achieve recognition for effort upon recieval of ceremonious cheese. Not thinking of the world outside it's caged efforts. Hindered through a hindrance in hindsight and extreme tunnel vision, the rat's teeth gnash and gnaw. And gnaws still yet more.
My name is Sofia.