GeorgeMason
NES Member
@jrpascucci Just curious how old you are.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
Late 40s, but I can't envision even a little how that might matter.
namedpipes
NES Member
He was probably trying to figure out if you were a kid playing with moms computer.
You have to admit there's something odd about your posts on this.
Are you ready to explain why you feel you have a right to make moral decisions for other people?
He's trying to box the argument into an philosophical/ethics/morality framework. Problem is, those frameworks allow the speaker to bias the conditions and definitions to suit their desired outcome through the use of vague terminology (in context). E.g. bad, good, ethical, moral, immoral.
These type of frameworks are strong for arguing a viewpoint if the definitions are already strongly defined across the population and a conflict exists in the outcome. E.g. death of an innocent = bad but the outcome is death no matter which decision is chosen. Physician assisted suicide, for instance.
Otherwise, the answers are guaranteed to be variable from person to person. As a speaker, you have no choice other than to start inserting parameters which will funnel the answer towards a unifying answer. Sometimes with bias. E.g. ignore the medical effects, define what's good, define what's bad, insert their own test conditions.
An example application might be the Trolley Problem:
Harm is guaranteed to occur. Is there a more "good" option?
Further,
"The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end." Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I'd argue this is being misapplied. "Harm", if any, is not to some innocent third party subject. "Harm" is getting buzzed, a conscious choice. Does that rise to being "serious". And does this apply to self-inflicted "harm". And, is getting buzzed actually harmful. Could there benefits to getting buzzed? Etc, etc...
These type of frameworks are strong for arguing a viewpoint if the definitions are already strongly defined across the population and a conflict exists in the outcome. E.g. death of an innocent = bad but the outcome is death no matter which decision is chosen. Physician assisted suicide, for instance.
Otherwise, the answers are guaranteed to be variable from person to person. As a speaker, you have no choice other than to start inserting parameters which will funnel the answer towards a unifying answer. Sometimes with bias. E.g. ignore the medical effects, define what's good, define what's bad, insert their own test conditions.
An example application might be the Trolley Problem:
You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:
- Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
- Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Harm is guaranteed to occur. Is there a more "good" option?
Further,
"The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end." Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I'd argue this is being misapplied. "Harm", if any, is not to some innocent third party subject. "Harm" is getting buzzed, a conscious choice. Does that rise to being "serious". And does this apply to self-inflicted "harm". And, is getting buzzed actually harmful. Could there benefits to getting buzzed? Etc, etc...
Last edited:
GeorgeMason
NES Member
I had never heard someone with your take on this before. Just trying to figure out where it was coming from.
namedpipes
NES Member
Holier than thou roller.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 49,020
- Likes
- 36,533
(I'm going to take vicor's post separately)
Those of us who still have functioning prefrontal cortices think it's kind of important. Heinlein reminds us "Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well." In that context, I can understand how that could be difficult for you guys (and a couple other of the thread's respondents) to relate.
So, tweedleditz and tweedledumbass, you seem to be under several misapprehensions, let me disabuse you:
First, had either of you bothered to follow the thread, the issue that I was responding to was answering 'I don’t understand why some people think that alcohol is perfectly fine but marijuana is somehow evil.' In response, I defined 'evil', gave the relevant difference between alcohol and marijuana in that respect, and the argument for the difference in the social use of alcohol and marijuana. How you feel about the argument is irrelevant, almost all of the responses have been irrelevant, your opinion doesn't matter, my opinion, also, doesn't matter: the argument stands by itself, founded on definitions that have implications that you might not be so sanguine with if you reject them. You are utterly free to not be persuaded by the argument for whatever reasons you have: I have hardly done a perfect job at explaining it, but you'd be even more the fool to think that the argument isn't coherent and worthy of consideration, even if the means of transmission (me, typing in a gun forum, answering some other dude who I sensed at the time was being genuine) isn't entirely.
Second, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I don't somehow understand the arguments you are proffering, or that in me disagreeing and holding a clear and concise opinion that differs from yours, that not taking the argument seriously _in its context_ (instead of whatever elision you want to put on it), or that an ad hominim, is somehow a valuable way to rebut it.
Instead, note that I've absolutely held the opinion you are espousing when I was younger and woefully ignorant. I've absolutely been a troglodytic libertarian, libertine f***ing degenerate. I didn't like it, so I stopped and did something else instead. Thus, it's entirely possible the major difference between you and I is that in the intervening years, maybe I've read a f***ing book or two that you haven't. And maybe you've read one that I haven't - but you haven't given even the vaguest inkling that is the case.
Third, Aquinas was the one (because 1000 years ago, the position was novel, now it's just regurgitated by idiots with no context) who suggested that a just government need not make illegal all evil acts. For instance, he suggested the harm from not prosecuting people engaged in prostitution was less than the harm that would come from enforcing the law. He had good reasons for saying that then, which I happen to agree with largely: people today generally have shitty, selfish and stupid reasons for saying the same thing. How you get there does, in fact, matter. For instance, if you were vaguely familiar with it, you could take the argument he came up with back then and apply it to this situation - then, I could argue how this is different than that.
Finally: people who hold and espouse vehemently libertarian views are generally (not universally) just selfish, small-government liberals, and are no way more useful or valuable than any leftist. So, no wonder you will find yourself in disagreement with the rare, actual conservative (someone who rejects all the bad things about the soi-disant enlightenment, and can identify what they were) that can be found in the wild.
(In this post, I have said these things in this way, because I think you and others might be able to appreciate it better - we live in a world where insulting someone and thus capturing their attention at the risk of turning them off if they are merely 'bots' is an okay strategy. Maybe you won't appreciate it, which will be okay because I don't actually care that much, I just wanted to try something different.)
Those of us who still have functioning prefrontal cortices think it's kind of important. Heinlein reminds us "Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well." In that context, I can understand how that could be difficult for you guys (and a couple other of the thread's respondents) to relate.
So, tweedleditz and tweedledumbass, you seem to be under several misapprehensions, let me disabuse you:
First, had either of you bothered to follow the thread, the issue that I was responding to was answering 'I don’t understand why some people think that alcohol is perfectly fine but marijuana is somehow evil.' In response, I defined 'evil', gave the relevant difference between alcohol and marijuana in that respect, and the argument for the difference in the social use of alcohol and marijuana. How you feel about the argument is irrelevant, almost all of the responses have been irrelevant, your opinion doesn't matter, my opinion, also, doesn't matter: the argument stands by itself, founded on definitions that have implications that you might not be so sanguine with if you reject them. You are utterly free to not be persuaded by the argument for whatever reasons you have: I have hardly done a perfect job at explaining it, but you'd be even more the fool to think that the argument isn't coherent and worthy of consideration, even if the means of transmission (me, typing in a gun forum, answering some other dude who I sensed at the time was being genuine) isn't entirely.
Second, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I don't somehow understand the arguments you are proffering, or that in me disagreeing and holding a clear and concise opinion that differs from yours, that not taking the argument seriously _in its context_ (instead of whatever elision you want to put on it), or that an ad hominim, is somehow a valuable way to rebut it.
Instead, note that I've absolutely held the opinion you are espousing when I was younger and woefully ignorant. I've absolutely been a troglodytic libertarian, libertine f***ing degenerate. I didn't like it, so I stopped and did something else instead. Thus, it's entirely possible the major difference between you and I is that in the intervening years, maybe I've read a f***ing book or two that you haven't. And maybe you've read one that I haven't - but you haven't given even the vaguest inkling that is the case.
Third, Aquinas was the one (because 1000 years ago, the position was novel, now it's just regurgitated by idiots with no context) who suggested that a just government need not make illegal all evil acts. For instance, he suggested the harm from not prosecuting people engaged in prostitution was less than the harm that would come from enforcing the law. He had good reasons for saying that then, which I happen to agree with largely: people today generally have shitty, selfish and stupid reasons for saying the same thing. How you get there does, in fact, matter. For instance, if you were vaguely familiar with it, you could take the argument he came up with back then and apply it to this situation - then, I could argue how this is different than that.
Finally: people who hold and espouse vehemently libertarian views are generally (not universally) just selfish, small-government liberals, and are no way more useful or valuable than any leftist. So, no wonder you will find yourself in disagreement with the rare, actual conservative (someone who rejects all the bad things about the soi-disant enlightenment, and can identify what they were) that can be found in the wild.
(In this post, I have said these things in this way, because I think you and others might be able to appreciate it better - we live in a world where insulting someone and thus capturing their attention at the risk of turning them off if they are merely 'bots' is an okay strategy. Maybe you won't appreciate it, which will be okay because I don't actually care that much, I just wanted to try something different.)
Last edited:
Now - you.
Sorry, I am not a protestant or a jesuit, or a first year philosophy student.
We have very hard and clear definitions, I don't get to change them.
Yes.
What, no. You sound like a misologue, but I don't think you intend it. We're under all the same constraints arguging against the smaller evils than the greater evils, etc. The underlying principles remain the same.
At some point, if we can agree on principals, we could proceed to prudence - looking for the 'better good'. But until you agree on principals, you are guaranteed the the 'better good' is not actually the better thing at all.
For the love of God, I've already had dumbass, modernist pseudophilosophy 25 years ago, I don't need it recapitulated - I'll assume that was for others than for me.
Finally! The one thing that I can actually respond to! Thank you so much, Vicorjh.
I can appreciate why you think it's misapplied, perhaps by proper proportion I can suggest how it might be understood to be a bigger deal than you see it:
If you consider that the root and foundation of every individual human's freedom is their ability to have a fully operant use of reason - to be compos mentis. Indeed, the capacity to follow the logic of an argument is the sole, transcendent guarantor of our limited freedom. Put another way, it is mostly because of the ability to do math is the key thing that allows us to know we are really free (since we can accept or reject the result - one guy may accept 1+1=2, another may reject 1+3=4 because he doesn't like 4).
If you cannot follow an argument given to you from outside, or more likely won't follow it, then you are truly just an animal (no ratio) - or as we would say today - an 'NPC'. Once you can follow an argument, then you know there was the moment in there that lead from 'idea' to 'act', and you can truly choose. It is here that you either choose your selfish, stupid, tiny little wants and desires, or the 'greater good' and 'more true' that can be had.
When we sleep, we lose some of our reason and freedom. When we are babies, we didn't have either reason or freedom, but we have a right to them (a right to grow up and thrive and make use of whatever our abilities we can as fully as we can). When we die, we lose all of our freedom. So, Freedom is pretty important (so that means, don't sleep so much, it impinges on your freedom.
Given this, limiting our rational capacity - limiting our freedom to do the good - is precisely the one thing that constitutes 'serious harm'. More serious than just death: the loss - or, indeed, handing over of your freedom to "the world" (which is going to use it badly). It's a kind of slavery. In the allegorical part of our lives, that is, this is known as "slavery to Satan, the prince of the world".
Sorry, I am not a protestant or a jesuit, or a first year philosophy student.
We have very hard and clear definitions, I don't get to change them.
Yes.
What, no. You sound like a misologue, but I don't think you intend it. We're under all the same constraints arguging against the smaller evils than the greater evils, etc. The underlying principles remain the same.
At some point, if we can agree on principals, we could proceed to prudence - looking for the 'better good'. But until you agree on principals, you are guaranteed the the 'better good' is not actually the better thing at all.
For the love of God, I've already had dumbass, modernist pseudophilosophy 25 years ago, I don't need it recapitulated - I'll assume that was for others than for me.
Finally! The one thing that I can actually respond to! Thank you so much, Vicorjh.
I can appreciate why you think it's misapplied, perhaps by proper proportion I can suggest how it might be understood to be a bigger deal than you see it:
If you consider that the root and foundation of every individual human's freedom is their ability to have a fully operant use of reason - to be compos mentis. Indeed, the capacity to follow the logic of an argument is the sole, transcendent guarantor of our limited freedom. Put another way, it is mostly because of the ability to do math is the key thing that allows us to know we are really free (since we can accept or reject the result - one guy may accept 1+1=2, another may reject 1+3=4 because he doesn't like 4).
If you cannot follow an argument given to you from outside, or more likely won't follow it, then you are truly just an animal (no ratio) - or as we would say today - an 'NPC'. Once you can follow an argument, then you know there was the moment in there that lead from 'idea' to 'act', and you can truly choose. It is here that you either choose your selfish, stupid, tiny little wants and desires, or the 'greater good' and 'more true' that can be had.
When we sleep, we lose some of our reason and freedom. When we are babies, we didn't have either reason or freedom, but we have a right to them (a right to grow up and thrive and make use of whatever our abilities we can as fully as we can). When we die, we lose all of our freedom. So, Freedom is pretty important (so that means, don't sleep so much, it impinges on your freedom.
Given this, limiting our rational capacity - limiting our freedom to do the good - is precisely the one thing that constitutes 'serious harm'. More serious than just death: the loss - or, indeed, handing over of your freedom to "the world" (which is going to use it badly). It's a kind of slavery. In the allegorical part of our lives, that is, this is known as "slavery to Satan, the prince of the world".
Last edited:
SpaceCritter
NES Member
I was at the gym on Monday. On the toob was Fox News (I'm there during the Retired LEO Hour) and they were discussing the case of the kid in - where else? - Florida bringing pot gummies (presumably from California) to school and handing them out in gym class. Some LEO was going on about how terrible it is that pot is legal in California. (Once again, the gummies thing happened in Florida.) He started in on the "gateway" thing.
Mind you, here I am, at present, at my desk in my office sipping a dark roast (black, no sugar), and I had a couple before heading to the gym Monday as well, but all I could think was, per the Mormans, the "gateway drug" is actually coffee.
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
Jesus Effing Christ. Someone that writes longer posts than calsdad! (No offense, Cal. But you KNOW you're a wordy guy)
Not going to bother reading your sermon, J, but I assume it boils down to "I'm smarter than all of you put together".
Well I'm pretty dammed bright myself and I'm not even near the smartest guy on this forum.
This is not your church group. Some of these people run legitimately big corporations, some carve up hearts and lungs to save lives and a few mow lawns. We are not impressed by your offerings here. Well I can't speak for the others but I sure as hell am not impressed.
Examine your life, properly this time. Objectively rather than preening your peacock tail.
That's a fancy way of saying take your head out of your "butt".
Last edited:
I appreciate that you are expressing your viewpoint. I simply do not agree. (Sorry, wordy response follows)
I have my own set of definitions on what is good or bad that clearly differ from your definitions. In particular, for issues that are NOT strongly defined across the society, the definitions in context are weakly defined. Not hard / not clear. E.g. Why do I have to accept your definitions? What if I believe getting "buzzed" is "good" (weak linkage). On the other-hand, if smoking a joint is guaranteed to cause death, I think I'd agree that this is a "bad" effect (strong linkage).
My wife has her own set of definitions on what is good and what is bad. And, guess what, they don't always align with my definitions. But, when there is a conflict, it is ALWAYS over the weakly defined (in context). In this way, we learn from each other sometimes adjusting our individual perception. We do not feel a need to consult Plato. I am thankful for that.
You were clearly "enlightened" somewhere along the line, yet, the anger is showing while addressing us plebs. Plato would not be pleased.
P.s. not everyone subscribes to the double effect.
P.p.s. I enjoy taking naps.
Who is we? I'm not sure I agree with "we".
I have my own set of definitions on what is good or bad that clearly differ from your definitions. In particular, for issues that are NOT strongly defined across the society, the definitions in context are weakly defined. Not hard / not clear. E.g. Why do I have to accept your definitions? What if I believe getting "buzzed" is "good" (weak linkage). On the other-hand, if smoking a joint is guaranteed to cause death, I think I'd agree that this is a "bad" effect (strong linkage).
My wife has her own set of definitions on what is good and what is bad. And, guess what, they don't always align with my definitions. But, when there is a conflict, it is ALWAYS over the weakly defined (in context). In this way, we learn from each other sometimes adjusting our individual perception. We do not feel a need to consult Plato. I am thankful for that.
Back up, I've said that individuals tend to bias these frameworks (whose underlying principals remain the same) by generating a set of constraints/definitions that suit their goals. Just like you're trying to do here. And have tried, repeatedly.
No, it was for everyone because it is a familiar thought experiment. It's for you too. It is clear, it is simple, it illustrative, and it has no bias. It's the individual reading the question that defines what is bad and what is good (peeking into the societal culture / sociopathy). If I start adding my personal definitions and constraints, it would radically change the experiment. I'd imagine that you've realized that is (partially) the point of that experiment in the first place (beyond the first order analysis).
You were clearly "enlightened" somewhere along the line, yet, the anger is showing while addressing us plebs. Plato would not be pleased.
(Pure) math is a logical truth tied to physical realities that are not (I should say rarely) molded by society and the events at the time. "good", "bad", "moral", "immoral" are not logical truths. Conflating the two is an attempt at slight of hand.
I don't agree with your constraints or definitions of your argument since they appear biased to produce your intended outcome. As such, I'm under no obligation to consider the question nor the outcome of your thought experiment to be the "truth" (from the outside). I can equally box in an argument with an intended goal and, once you object, I'll claim that you are a misologue as well. That would be equally intellectually dishonest. Under such constraints, we have no "freedom" nor can we have "reason". We can never "truly choose" as there is no choice to make.
I agree. I don't think we agree on the definition whether "slavery to satan" is involved or not.
P.s. not everyone subscribes to the double effect.
P.p.s. I enjoy taking naps.
Last edited:
If you consider that the root and foundation of every individual human's freedom is their ability to have a fully operant use of reason - to be compos mentis. Indeed, the capacity to follow the logic of an argument is the sole, transcendent guarantor of our limited freedom. Put another way, it is mostly because of the ability to do math is the key thing that allows us to know we are really free (since we can accept or reject the result - one guy may accept 1+1=2, another may reject 1+3=4 because he doesn't like 4).
If you cannot follow an argument given to you from outside, or more likely won't follow it, then you are truly just an animal (no ratio) - or as we would say today - an 'NPC'. Once you can follow an argument, then you know there was the moment in there that lead from 'idea' to 'act', and you can truly choose. It is here that you either choose your selfish, stupid, tiny little wants and desires, or the 'greater good' and 'more true' that can be had.
When we sleep, we lose some of our reason and freedom. When we are babies, we didn't have either reason or freedom, but we have a right to them (a right to grow up and thrive and make use of whatever our abilities we can as fully as we can). When we die, we lose all of our freedom. So, Freedom is pretty important (so that means, don't sleep so much, it impinges on your freedom.
Given this, limiting our rational capacity - limiting our freedom to do the good - is precisely the one thing that constitutes 'serious harm'. More serious than just death: the loss - or, indeed, handing over of your freedom to "the world" (which is going to use it badly). It's a kind of slavery. In the allegorical part of our lives, that is, this is known as "slavery to Satan, the prince of the world".
gAY
Randy Lahey
NES Member
I picture you finishing off a very tall glass of red wine as you typed out that flowery load of self-agrandizing, mental masturbation at 3:17 in the morning. Okay you’ve got your preferred “evil” substance which is “good”, and those who disagree are immoral plebes.
While it's a contentious issue, it amazes me that y'all can't just accept that others have different opinions. Get over yourselves and get back to the topic.
I see a little 'gang' mentality here which is pretty disappointing from this crew.
I see a little 'gang' mentality here which is pretty disappointing from this crew.
namedpipes
NES Member
You see reacting against oppression as "ganging" up on the guy?
What's your view on the increase in gun control legislation? "Let 'em do what they want!"?
Resist oppression at all times or it becomes the norm.
Scriv said it better - something like this...
"What you tolerate, you validate."
namedpipes
NES Member
How are Facebook NPC's Destroying America Again?
Because people are TOLERATING it.
Nobody is saying he can't offer his viewpoint, but I, and anyone else am exactly as free to call him out on it as he is to say it.
Go ahead and ignore him (or me) if you want. But first, go copy/paste his viewpoint into a text editor and replace references to pot with references to guns. See if you still agree. Then do the same exercise with gays, then with non Roman Catholic religious groups, etc.
-Familiar with scriv and his wisdom(s).
-not looking to (again) get caught up in this
2 things:
Re: FaceSpace - you could reverse the scriv quote and turn off the 'book'
Dench: you have no obligation to live by his opinions
-not looking to (again) get caught up in this
2 things:
Re: FaceSpace - you could reverse the scriv quote and turn off the 'book'
Dench: you have no obligation to live by his opinions
namedpipes
NES Member
Daveyburt, ignoring / tolerating / validating oppressive viewpoints fosters the "impression" to others that the viewpoint is valid.
And now two people say it, in harmony. Then three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin' in, singin' about how pot is awful (or guns, or gays or blacks)? They may think it's an Organization!
And now fifty people are singing that same verse. How awful! MUST BAN! I said FIFTY people. Facebook may think it's a Movement, and that's what THE NPC, Hate 'em Till They Tolerate movement is all about: Making hatred and intolerance look NORMAL.
And all you gotta do to stop it is to stop TOLERATING it.
Sing it out the next time it comes around...
And now two people say it, in harmony. Then three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin' in, singin' about how pot is awful (or guns, or gays or blacks)? They may think it's an Organization!
And now fifty people are singing that same verse. How awful! MUST BAN! I said FIFTY people. Facebook may think it's a Movement, and that's what THE NPC, Hate 'em Till They Tolerate movement is all about: Making hatred and intolerance look NORMAL.
And all you gotta do to stop it is to stop TOLERATING it.
Sing it out the next time it comes around...
Dench
NES Member
I don't? His opinions are common and have driven US Drug policy for the past 70 years. How many people have died? As in, dead. Like shot in the head, no longer living from this type of thinking? A few million since the 1980's?
His opinion is what drives policy that puts people in federal prison for decades for possessing a plant. NES has had this problem since day one. Most people here love guns, but I'd say about half hate or are afraid of personal freedom.
Since we're quoting good ol' Scrivy [sic,] "What you tolerate you validate." I'm not going to tolerate peoples opinions that support policy that can have my life destroyed for something that doesn't even have a victim.
