This came about on a reflection based on linking some recent (and not so recent) threads with common practice in the social sciences.
First-off, what is "beating a dead horse" in regards to a discussion?
That can supposedly be resolved easily with a definition:
is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.
All in all that is well and simple: perhaps its the same discussion that has been replayed in its standard iterations for the billionth time in a very similar manner... but is that a dead-end? is it futile? has the outcome been decided?
I posit that it is not any of this things, but here is the catch: there needs to be reviewing of past discussions, history of the subject, and a general knowledge of what has been said and done before. And it also requires the participants in the discussion to integrate the new information or knowledge that is discussed even if it runs contrary to their ideology or beliefs (otherwise its just partisan screeching on any given debate).
This is where it relates to the social sciences: it is not forbidden or useless to discuss anything
... but the more a topic or subject has been discussed or dissected, the cost to be paid for those that wish to participate in the discussion, the more work they have to do to actually do something useful
... one has to review previous positionings or theories, learn about their critiques or downfalls and what came of it.
Say, you want to make a serious statement on what and why "love" is what it is, beyond what you subjectively think it is? Go read up on the history of the positions regarding the subject, the context in which those positions affected the creation of that posture, the critiques, assess the current context in which you create the new concept and then maybe if you arent tired after all that, you can make that serious statement.
Speaking specifically about PD and its drug threads, theres agreement on that its a reiteration of past discussions, so the correct thing to do is for those interested in discussing such topic, to read ALL
the drug threads, so they know the context and the arguments, instead of running around in circles.
So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND
or SHUT UP