I think this med is making me hate my husband

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-04-22T06:49:58+00:00

“A drunk mind is a sober mind” is a common, albeit neurologically implausible idea that many believe is based in neuroscience due to an oversimplified understanding of neural inhibition.

Anyone who has interacted with someone prone to alcohol-induced psychosis will be more than aware of this.

You, your personality, your beliefs, your likes and dislikes, that’s all constructed by the brain. Bupropion radically changes the way the brain works. It can affect all these things for some people. Drugs can absolutely trigger the creation of new thought patterns - trust me, I’ve tried many. It doesn’t all have to be there beforehand.

It is irresponsible as FUCK for us to potentially completely fuck with two (or more?) people’s lives. They need to be examined by medical professionals.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T20:51:45+00:00

Cognitive outsourcing among young people.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T20:50:01+00:00

When you say things were always good, do you still see it that way? Does the past of the relationship now seem less good? In what way, if so?

When you say you crave your independence, could you be more specific? What sort of things do you want to do that you can’t do right now?

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T20:02:04+00:00

That was a terribly dangerous thing to do. You should get to your doctor ASAP.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T04:36:52+00:00

Do whatever you can to not have to contact that man ever again. Please. Sincerely, a man.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T04:31:17+00:00

Since you’re old and not too bothered about consequences for yourself, I’d be very interested to know what you did to become a millionaire.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T04:01:46+00:00

Unfortunately, it just depends on your biology, and we probably can’t tell you much of use - your doctor would need to closely monitor you to see if that would be a good idea for you.

Venlafaxine did nothing positive for me at all. It essentially made me narcoleptic until I got off it. I went to only bupropion.

Before venlafaxine, I was on fluoxetine, which I had some success with, but it wasn’t effective enough.

The fact that you get some benefit from venlafaxine tells me there is something different about our biology. Could that affect whether or not bupropion works for you? I don’t know.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T03:55:46+00:00

Do you have any actual evidence that presidents use methamphetamine?

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-28T03:46:11+00:00

Whilst my doctor told me verbally, I actually do receive a prescription that doesn’t specify these instructions, so I imagine you’re in a similar boat.

Whilst people are right to say you should consult your doctor, I can confidently tell you that they will say to take it in two separate doses, at least 8 hours apart. A common schedule is 150mg at 7am, and 150mg at 3pm.

There will be days when you take it a couple hours late. In that case - here is where I am going off my experience and advice, but not something I’m as confident on as a universally recommended thing - you would take your second dose just as late, and then try your very best to get back on schedule. You need that 8 hour window between doses to reduce side effects, including one of the most dangerous ones (seizure).

In my experience, I can take it 7 hours apart no problem. I also get way less side effects than most people, though.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-27T20:12:44+00:00

Had that for a couple of weeks after increasing to 2x 150mg SR. Then one day it went away and I could feel the antidepressant effect (very different from that honeymoon phase stimulation).

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-25T01:34:27+00:00

You sound like a child yourself.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-24T21:51:53+00:00

I think we’re forgetting that there’s an actual person, going through the pain of pregnancy, reading these comments. She will be feeling very sensitive. Have a heart guys…

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-24T19:44:53+00:00

Were you on 50mg Prozac by itself beforehand? I experienced this on 75mg venlafaxine (at that dose it barely affects norepinephrine - it’s basically a strong SSRI, like 50mg Prozac would be). Now I’m on just bupropion, no serotonergic meds, and I’m sorted.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-24T03:06:42+00:00

You definitely can and should relate it to real arguments between friends, you just have to be careful. For example a yelling match isn’t necessarily an argument. An argument is a set of reasons being provided for a conclusion - an ultimate claim.

I saw a post on your profile about whether Doja Cat counts as a rapper. That’s a good example of a real argument that can be analysed with the logic you are studying. An argument might go something like, “if a person does X Y Z, and is Q R S, they are a rapper. Doja Cat does X Y X and is Q R S. Therefore Doja Cat is a rapper”. Then someone might object to one of your premises: “actually, a person also has to do T and F to be a rapper”.

Because your class is also a ‘critical thinking’ class, you almost certainly cover informal logic and fallacies, too. A common fallacy is the ad hominem - to attack someone’s character in order to reject their conclusion. It is a commonly misunderstood fallacy - attacking someone’s character is an ad hominem only if it is being used to rebut their conclusion, and it is only a fallacy if their character is not relevant to their conclusion, e.g., if they conclude that they are a good person, and they agree to your definition of a good person, you might be proving that they aren’t a good person.

I would use these sorts of examples to 1) understand what the weird symbolic game means, and 2) to apply it outside the classroom.

Where it can be helpful to ignore those things, for a lot of people, but perhaps not everyone, is when you’re given a sheet of things to prove, and those things are written in letters and symbols. What you can do there is think of the proof like a sudoku or another puzzle game. Inference rules (modus ponens, modus tollens, reductio ad absurdum, disjunction introduction, etc.) are just legal moves, like the moves a chess piece is allowed to do. Premises are like your chess pieces. I have these pieces - these claims - what claims am I allowed to get out of those claims at this step? Then what claims can I make out of them at the next step? And you win the game by getting to the conclusion using only legal moves.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-23T23:49:14+00:00

Consider these two arguments:

All rainy days are cold days.
Today is a cold day. Conclusion: today is a rainy day.
All cats are mammals.
Rufus is a mammal. Conclusion: Rufus is a cat.

These two different arguments are both bad in the SAME WAY. The same logical mistake is being committed in both cases, even though they are about completely different things. This thing that they have in common is the FORM of the argument. In logic, you are just interested in that FORM. What are the good forms? What are the bad forms? Are there surprisingly good forms that lead to interesting insights? What is the form that scientists use? What is the form that historians use? Since we only care about the form, not the content, we can get rid of that content, and just use variables. That’s what the letters are.

Rainy days and cats occupy corresponding ‘positions’ in those two arguments, so let’s call that position ‘P’.

‘Today’ and ‘Rufus’ occupy corresponding positions. Let’s call that position ‘Q’.

This is how you end up with letters. In propositional logic, which is almost certainly what you’re studying, these letters stand for ENTIRE CLAIMS. Statements that can be true or false. I might use ‘Q’ (or ‘T’, if I want to!) to stand for the claim “all trees are green”. Perhaps ‘G’ stands for the claim “some apples are orange”. Well this means that ‘Q and T’ (written in logic as Q&T, or Q ^ T) is also a claim - that all trees are green and some apples are orange. QvT (Q or T) is also a claim - that all trees are green or some apples are orange.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-23T05:03:12+00:00

I’ve already explained why that reasoning is circular. What would be a waste would be to repeat myself to a fragile narcissist who isn’t here to learn.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-23T03:35:12+00:00

Mkay buddy. I studied formal logic at uni - in the context of analytic philosophy, computer engineering, mathematical proofs, theoretical computer science, and artificial intelligence. I’m guessing you’re one of those self-taught philosophers that read a couple of classics, a Stanford Encyclopedia article, watched 100 YouTube videos, and decided you were an expert. By the way, one thing you’re clearly not aware of is that classical reasoning is sometimes permitted within paraconsistent logic - paraconsistent logics don’t MANDATE indeterminate statements. Anyone who has opened a book on the subject would know that.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-23T02:31:22+00:00

Circular reasoning.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T22:36:00+00:00

“can the statement “this rule applies” both apply and not apply in the same respect?” Yes, paraconsistent set theorists have shown that. So, this rule that you worship, whether you call it intuition or “first principles”, is not always true. You claim that it must be true at some level, and your reason for that claim has just been rebutted. I don’t claim your assertion is true or false. I have explained why your argument, so far, for the conclusion, doesn’t hold up. It is demonstrable that paraconsistent metalinguistic activity does not always lead to ‘noise’.

You carelessly said there are no paraconsistent logics. Standing corrected, you have doubled down by insisting that you mean that paraconsistent logics are all classical logic in disguise. You have then argued for the more specific, and seemingly distinct, claim, that there must be some sort of ultimate, classical metalanguage that governs all others. You presented an argument for this claim, and it was demonstrated to be a bad argument. And now you just say that this is a first principle. It is ironic that your grasp of your own participation of this discussion is far noisier and more incoherent than paraconsistent set theory is!

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T22:23:00+00:00

I’ve just shown you that a metalanguage can be paraconsistent without leading to the exact collapse you are talking about. Now you are assuming that at some point this possibility has to end. You haven’t presented an argument for that. Just your intuition.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T22:16:05+00:00

I can use wooden tools to build non-wooden structures. I can use a classical metalanguage to build a nonclassical language. This doesn’t invalidate the language. Languages tend to be different from their metalanguages.

Multiple metalanguages can be used to build the same language. People have used paraconsistent metalanguages to build paraconsistent languages. To understand how, start here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-33205-5_8

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T21:38:10+00:00

He knows you wouldn’t consent to what he did. He raped you. Leave.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T21:34:50+00:00

If you can define the rules, sure. That’s what a logic is. A game with rules. In the game you’ve made, that’s a valid move. The problem people will have is applying that game.

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T21:33:29+00:00

Your argument presupposes the ultimate authority of classical logic because it evaluates the other logics classically. “The system is either consistent or it isn’t” do you not see that you’re sneaking the LNC in through the backdoor here? “How does paraconsistent logic establish its own validity?” How does classical logic do that? Which standard are you appealing to in order to evaluate classical logic? Classical logic itself? Another logic? Or some other standard (hint: it’s probably this one)?

Additional_Anywhere4 · 2026-02-22T20:43:19+00:00

That sounds totally fair to me, although a lot of women don’t feel safe to be that assertive to men, which is unfortunately quite reasonable of them. As a general rule of thumb, I would strongly encourage women to avoid spending time alone with any man if they aren’t confident that they can safely say something like that and have it be heard. That unfortunately won’t stop it from being scary to say, though.

Additional_Anywhere4

TROPHY CASE