Regulation of Drugs


howardahood

Recommended Posts

Bob,

Presumptions of dishonesty when looking at a simple comment grate on my nerves, too. There are many reasons a person could conclude something: not understanding correctly, lack of knowledge, unfamiliarity with context, bad mood, not enough time for proper thought, etc.

You can only learn by making mistakes. If you never make a mistake about something, you don't need to learn it. You alread know it. The reason you need to learn it is to not make mistakes.

It would be great if we were all like Athena and pop into existence fully armed. But we are human and need to learn. Life does not allow us to learn principles of concept formation first, then worry about survival, social interaction, etc. We have to start dealing with survival and people from birth and do the best we can with what we have.

At least this example was veiled as a question. Not great, but better than outright calling someone a dishonest person as if they corrupted their thinking on purpose.

EDIT: I am not into micro-managing grown adults. If a person is abrasive, he learns the cost of it through the reactions of others. I don't need to stay on him for each word. The standard is a bit flexible and I try to take into account a person's nature and history. But there is a line where this context no longer holds validity. Then I delete posts, moderate, etc.

One starting point is profanity spoken in anger at a specific poster with intent to humiliate him or show hatred of him. This is not a great standard, but it works in general terms. And, as I said, it is merely a starting point.

btw - I am removing the restriction. Thank you for your civility so far.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael,

Any sane definition of "civility" for a forum includes the idea of intellectual honesty, and therefore does not rule out calling someone out for being dishonest or asking whether they might be. It also rules out dogmatic definitions of civility. So really, you are the one being uncivilized, not me.

"Civility" does not mean treating uncivilized people as if they were, which is what your dogmatic definition requires.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any sane definition of "civility" for a forum includes the idea of intellectual honesty,

Huh? You're bundling a concept in where it has no basis for belonging.

The dictionary definition:

ci·vil·i·ty

1. courtesy; politeness.

If you have a different one, state it and substantiate it because civility does not include the concept of "intellectual honesty".

and therefore does not rule out calling someone out for being dishonest or asking whether they might be.

You did more than just ask. Even your questions were just veiled statements. And you do it all the time. For example you claimed I was irrational - not my opinion or my point of view, no, I was irrational.

So really, you are the one being uncivilized, not me.

You just turned reality on its head.

"Civility" does not mean treating uncivilized people as if they were, which is what your dogmatic definition requires.

Civility means courtesy, which means "excellence of manners or social conduct; polite behavior". This means that in social situations (i.e., when dealing with others, not only 'civilized' others), in order to claim you have demonstrated civility, you must behave politely and make use of good manners. The concept 'civility' does not distinguish between social conduct that involves 'civilized' or 'uncivilized' persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, if "civility" means that we can't call a spade a spade--a dishonest act a dishonest act--then it is a useless concept in debate. My concept of "civilized debate" might include the lack of profanity, but it definitely includes the existence of an unswerving devotion to reason as an absolute, and addressing every relevant point, including whether an opponent's idea is honest. The most uncivilized thing someone can do is throw reason out the window. If you want to call that turning something on its head, then you're the one whose got it backwards.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, if "civility" means that we can't call a spade a spade--a dishonest act a dishonest act--then it is a useless concept in debate. My concept of "civilized debate" might include the lack of profanity, but it definitely includes the existence of an unswerving devotion to reason as an absolute, and addressing every relevant point, including whether an opponent's idea is honest. The most uncivilized thing someone can do is throw reason out the window. If you want to call that turning something on its head, then you're the one whose got it backwards.

Shayne

For all your talk about 'reason' you are about the most unreasonable person I have seen on this forum. I don't think you know what the word means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, if "civility" means that we can't call a spade a spade--a dishonest act a dishonest act--then it is a useless concept in debate. My concept of "civilized debate" might include the lack of profanity, but it definitely includes the existence of an unswerving devotion to reason as an absolute, and addressing every relevant point, including whether an opponent's idea is honest. The most uncivilized thing someone can do is throw reason out the window. If you want to call that turning something on its head, then you're the one whose got it backwards.

Shayne

For all your talk about 'reason' you are about the most unreasonable person I have seen on this forum. I don't think you know what the word means.

GS, are you saying that you disagree with something I said in the above, or are you just sore because you lose most of the arguments you engage in?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, if "civility" means that we can't call a spade a spade--a dishonest act a dishonest act--then it is a useless concept in debate. My concept of "civilized debate" might include the lack of profanity, but it definitely includes the existence of an unswerving devotion to reason as an absolute, and addressing every relevant point, including whether an opponent's idea is honest. The most uncivilized thing someone can do is throw reason out the window. If you want to call that turning something on its head, then you're the one whose got it backwards.

Shayne

For all your talk about 'reason' you are about the most unreasonable person I have seen on this forum. I don't think you know what the word means.

It's not "reason." It's pretentious, self-righteous intellectual bullying. I only read him now when someone quotes him and even then not necesssarily.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all your talk about 'reason' you are about the most unreasonable person I have seen on this forum. I don't think you know what the word means.

reason has little if any relation with being reasonable, when the latter is used in the common parlance as you have done. You're conflating two different concepts.

Edited by George Donnelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "reason." It's pretentious, self-righteous intellectual bullying.

Coming from Brant, that is a complement. Everything he said is a euphemism for: My arguments are superior to his, and when I know I'm right, I don't back down. Very high praise indeed, thank you Brant.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

There is a bit of a story on that you might find interesting.

Reason and reasonable was a distinction Nathaniel Branden made in an essay called The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement. Here is the pertinent part:

Confusing reason with "the reasonable"

I have said that Ayn Rand was a great champion of reason, a passionate champion of the human mind—and a total adversary of any form of irrationalism or any form of what she called mysticism. I say "of what she called mysticism," because I do not really think she understood mysticism very well—I know she never studied the subject—and irrationalism and mysticism are not really synonymous, as they are treated in "Atlas Shrugged." That gets me a little off my track, however. A discussion of mysticism outside the Randian framework will have to wait for some other occasion. I will only state for the record that I am not prepared to say, as Rand was, that anyone who might describe him- or herself as a "mystic" is to be dismissed as a crackpot or a charlatan. Reason is at once a faculty and a process of identifying and integrating the data present or given in awareness. Reason means integration in accordance with the law of noncontradiction. If you think of it in these terms—as a process of noncontradictory integration—it's difficult to imagine how anyone could be opposed to it.

Here is the problem: There is a difference between reason as a process and what any person or any group of people, at any time in history, may regard as "the reasonable." This is a distinction that very few people are able to keep clear. We all exist in history, not just in some timeless vacuum, and probably none of us can entirely escape contemporary notions of "the reasonable." It's always important to remember that reason or rationality, on the one hand, and what people may regard as "the reasonable," on the other hand, don't mean the same thing.

The consequence of failing to make this distinction, and this is markedly apparent in the case of Ayn Rand, is that if someone disagrees with your notion of "the reasonable," it can feel very appropriate to accuse him or her of being "irrational" or "against reason."

If you read her books, or her essays in The Objectivist, or if you listen to her lectures, you will notice with what frequency and ease she branded any viewpoint she did not share as not merely mistaken but "irrational" or "mystical." In other words, anything that challenged her particular model of reality was not merely wrong but "irrational" and "mystical"—to say nothing, of course, of its being "evil," another word she loved to use with extraordinary frequency.

No doubt every thinker has to be understood, at least in part, in terms of what the thinker is reacting against, that is, the historical context in which the thinker's work begins. Ayn Rand was born in Russia: a mystical country in the very worst sense of the word, a country that never really passed through the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment in the way that Western Europe did. Ayn Rand herself was not only a relentless rationalist, she was profoundly secular, profoundly in love with this world, in a way that I personally can only applaud. Yet the problem is that she became very quick on the draw in response to anything that even had the superficial appearance of irrationalism, by which I mean, of anything that did not fit her particular understanding of "the reasonable."

This was presented in 1984 and has give orthodox Objectivists heartburn ever since.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

There is a bit of a story on that you might find interesting.

Reason and reasonable was a distinction Nathaniel Branden made in an essay called The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement.

Interesting, thanks. I agree that the results of reasoning may be quite different for two given individuals but to say that "reason has little if any relation with being reasonable" is kind of well..... silly. I have seen several posters here do what Branden describes - call someone unreasonable because they don't agree with them, (or worse, dishonest,evil etc.) It's just plain insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but to say that "reason has little if any relation with being reasonable" is kind of well..... silly.

HH thinks that a prohibition on the production of certain drugs is a reasonable measure. Yet by the use of reason we come to know that this is a violation of individual rights, the fundamental condition for civilzation. Therefore just because something is deemed reasonable does not mean that it is the result of a process of thinking based on reason.

Edited by George Donnelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, what seems to happen frequently, as in this case with Shayne, is that when an issue becomes less than black and white and threatens a fundamental tenet like personal freedom of choice what happens (as put well in another thread) in response is a "rage against the facts".

Addicted people are in a weakened state, usually both physically and certainly emotionally and rationally - fact. How they got that way is not relevant to the predatory behaviour of drug dealers who continue to exploit them knowing full well they're causing harm - fact. To me, it's no different than seeing an injured person on the ground and giving him a good boot to the head as you walk by - even if he asked to be kicked it's still wrong. There is a very strong argument that the dealers are predatory thugs very much worthy of scorn and forceful legal punishment.

Name calling is just a rage against these facts because anything that threatens choice must be attacked - at all costs - logic, reason, and civility be damned.

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, if "civility" means that we can't call a spade a spade ... then it is a useless concept in debate.

Not here at OL. We are guests of an owner who has apparently placed the condition on us of being civil. If you refuse to abide by the owner's conditions yet continue to be a guest, you are not being entirely respectful of the owner's property rights.

That's like a farmer inviting you onto his land with the condition that you not pull out his carrots. And then you pull out his carrots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addicted people are in a weakened state, usually both physically and certainly emotionally and rationally - fact. How they got that way is not relevant to the predatory behaviour of drug dealers who continue to exploit them knowing full well they're causing harm - fact.

How an addicted person became addicted is not relevant? If he chose it or if it was forced upon him? That is entirely relevant. The former means he bears full responsibility for the results of his actions. The latter means he bears little if any responsibility.

To me, it's no different than seeing an injured person on the ground and giving him a good boot to the head as you walk by - even if he asked to be kicked it's still wrong. There is a very strong argument that the dealers are predatory thugs very much worthy of scorn and forceful legal punishment.

Well let's hear that "strong argument". And let us know whose rights are being violated exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addicted people are in a weakened state, usually both physically and certainly emotionally and rationally - fact. How they got that way is not relevant to the predatory behaviour of drug dealers who continue to exploit them knowing full well they're causing harm - fact.

How an addicted person became addicted is not relevant? If he chose it or if it was forced upon him? That is entirely relevant. The former means he bears full responsibility for the results of his actions. The latter means he bears little if any responsibility.

So, one at a time.

According to your view then, the latter situation ( where the addiction is NOT his responsibility) but he still chooses to buy more drugs, does the dealer commit a more serious violation or not? Or is there no 'violation' at all?

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or look at is this way.

A risky teenager A rides his dirt bike into a tree and suffers mental impairment. Teenager B is born mentally retarded. I can convince both of them to buy a product and pay all of their money for it. But they agree to buy it - freely. I'm a good salesman.

Is it wrong for me to do this? Or only to B? Both? None?

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it's no different than seeing an injured person on the ground and giving him a good boot to the head as you walk by - even if he asked to be kicked it's still wrong. There is a very strong argument that the dealers are predatory thugs very much worthy of scorn and forceful legal punishment.

Well let's hear that "strong argument". And let us know whose rights are being violated exactly.

Do you think we should be protected from exploitation while mentally or physically impaired or not? Strong simple question, strong simple argument.

I think you're saying it depends on how the impairment happened. I say it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is clear. You need to make yours clear.

re/ the teenagers: Well what is the product? An Uzi or Atlas Shrugged? Because it make a big difference. And how much is "all of their money"? Is it a sum that constitutes a reasonable price? Or does it constitute an exaggerated price, relative to the current market price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think we should be protected from exploitation while mentally or physically impaired or not? Strong simple question, strong simple argument.

I think you're saying it depends on how the impairment happened. I say it doesn't matter.

That's not a [strong] argument. You simply asked a question and tagged on a conclusion without showing any reasoning or even much of a conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is clear. You need to make yours clear.

re/ the teenagers: Well what is the product? An Uzi or Atlas Shrugged? Because it make a big difference. And how much is "all of their money"? Is it a sum that constitutes a reasonable price? Or does it constitute an exaggerated price, relative to the current market price?

So it matters what the product is? How about cocaine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think we should be protected from exploitation while mentally or physically impaired or not? Strong simple question, strong simple argument.

I think you're saying it depends on how the impairment happened. I say it doesn't matter.

That's not a [strong] argument. You simply asked a question and tagged on a conclusion without showing any reasoning or even much of a conclusion.

I don't see much, if any difference between protection of the impaired and the right to life. To me it's a simple, direct extension.

EDIT: to add - In my opinion, one doesn't have much right to life if others have the right to exploit you when you're impaired, prevent (or impede at the very least) you from recovering and harming you for their benefit. That, to me is a strong argument -as strong as the right to life at least.

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

argument: a process of reasoning; series of reasons.

You claim a strong argument but all you have is questions and some assertions without supporting reasons.

How is the drug dealer "exploiting" you if you, an adult, approach him offering to buy what he sells?

That's like saying the corner grocer exploits you because you just must have the coffee or beer or wine or grain alcohol or cigarettes he sells.

Or maybe the prostitute exploits you because you just gotta have what she is offering for sale. It's a natural urge after all. You can hardly be blamed.

Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now