Regulation of Drugs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Indoctrination of children does count for something.

For a simple example, there are about 100,000,000 Muslims who are either radical Islamists or highly supportive of them. Each single individual in that group is convinced he is virtuous, even when acts of terrorism are involved. So we cannot fight them as if they had criminal mentalities. A criminal knows he is doing wrong.

And there is a small number of radical Objectivists who, in a similar disconnection from reality, think the other 1,400,000,000 Muslims are crazed Islamists... (oops... couldn't resist... I was discussing indoctrination from childhood... )

Joking aside, I wonder how those who like to oversimplify NIOF explain—in terms of NIOF—how Nazism can be outlawed as an intellectual movement.

Apropos, I personally think the work of cult victim de-programmers is fascinating. This is an area where the lines get badly blurred.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As for Michael the-chaser-awayer, whom aren't you going to chase away if you can in your desire to preach to the converted only? What's the point of even being here?

Brant,

Over on RoR they have a stated policy of prohibiting those who they deem are not Objectivists to post only in a Dissent Forum. The "deem" part certainly works out, but their standards are screwy in application. All I see in practice is the same thing you see with any high school clique.

Be that as it may, I had a thought that started me laughing, then I couldn't stop.

Suppose I set up a Forum on OL for those who are snarky, only preach to the converted and the poor saps who wander into it? Then prohibit those preachers from posting on the other threads?

Heh.

Guess what whould happen to the traffic stats of such a thread on comparison with the others?

Heh again.

We all know that the name of the game for the snarky preachers is audience, despite them claiming to be individualists and considering audience a Peter Keating thing to value. Otherwise they would make their own spaces for their preaching. But when they try, they end up speaking to themselves, a friend or two and their dog. (At least the ones I have seen.) You don't get much milage out of being snarky with that. And it gets lonely. So they abandon their spaces and migrate to where there is an audience that has built up.

I love the idea of an Objectivist Preacher Forum, but alas, that is not my way of doing things.

Still...

Hmmmm...

(I can't stop laughing...)

Michael

[sjw]

(I can't stop laughing...)

So I take it that you regard Objectivist Living as a great accomplishment then? A high point of creativity in your life?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

As for Michael the-chaser-awayer, whom aren't you going to chase away if you can in your desire to preach to the converted only? What's the point of even being here?

Brant,

Over on RoR they have a stated policy of prohibiting those who they deem are not Objectivists to post only in a Dissent Forum. The "deem" part certainly works out, but their standards are screwy in application. All I see in practice is the same thing you see with any high school clique.

Be that as it may, I had a thought that started me laughing, then I couldn't stop.

Suppose I set up a Forum on OL for those who are snarky, only preach to the converted and the poor saps who wander into it? Then prohibit those preachers from posting on the other threads?

Heh.

Guess what whould happen to the traffic stats of such a thread on comparison with the others?

Heh again.

We all know that the name of the game for the snarky preachers is audience, despite them claiming to be individualists and considering audience a Peter Keating thing to value. Otherwise they would make their own spaces for their preaching. But when they try, they end up speaking to themselves, a friend or two and their dog. (At least the ones I have seen.) You don't get much milage out of being snarky with that. And it gets lonely. So they abandon their spaces and migrate to where there is an audience that has built up.

I love the idea of an Objectivist Preacher Forum, but alas, that is not my way of doing things.

Still...

Hmmmm...

(I can't stop laughing...)

Michael

You aren't the Michael I was referring too, Michael.

--Brant

[sjw]

I am not an Objectivist (April 8, 2008)

Me neither.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So I take it that you regard Objectivist Living as a great accomplishment then? A high point of creativity in your life?

Shayne,

Yep.

Not great great, but one I am quite proud of. Since its existence is a collective effort, I believe many OL members feel the same.

Michael

You aren't the Michael I was referring too, Michael.

Brant,

I was aware of that when I made my post.

Michael

[tjohnson]

culture: The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

induce: to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind

So a social problem is a problem that persons persuade other persons to experience? Sure, that makes sense.

But I don't see why that needs any special consideration as long as no force or fraud are used in the persuasion. Just because my neighbors convince me to eat McDonalds daily, therefore rendering me obese, why does that now merit some special category or attention in public policy?

IOW, it's nobody's problem but my own and the bureaucrats, politicians and social workers have no business leveraging it to justify initiation of force against others under the assumption that my need to be thin again presents a claim check on their freedom, attention or productive ability.

What about when children mimic adults behaviour, has they do naturally. A boy who sees his father beat his mother regularly will often do the same to his wife when he is older. If we were cavemen this wouldn't be a problem but in the 21st century it is considered a 'social problem'. These kinds of problems involve "vicious circle" mechanisms and intervention needs to happen to prevent it from spreading from one generation to the next.

[georgedonnelly]

Indoctrination of children does count for something.

This statement is so vague as to be meaningless.

So we cannot fight them as if they had criminal mentalities. A criminal knows he is doing wrong.

Of what import is the mentality? This sounds similar to giving importance to intentions, which brings us to: "But I didn't MEAN it!" Well, tough luck, you DID it.

Joking aside, I wonder how those who like to oversimplify NIOF explain—in terms of NIOF—how Nazism can be outlawed as an intellectual movement.

It can't be outlawed.

[georgedonnelly]

A boy who sees his father beat his mother regularly will often do the same to his wife when he is older.

MAY is the right word. To beat your wife or your children, to drink, smoke, or do drugs is all a choice. Just because I saw my dad doing something undesirable on a daily basis as a kid does not mean I will do it too. As a human being I have control over myself and may decide what to imitate and what not to.

Anyone who claims they initiated force because they just couldn't control themselves either requires restraint and psychological / psychiatric assistance or they are simply evading reality (lying).

but in the 21st century it is considered a 'social problem'. These kinds of problems involve "vicious circle" mechanisms

WHO considers it? You consider it? If so, come out and say it. Your use of passive voice here lops the head off the body of the sentence and results in a floating statement with no connection to reality.

There is no such thing as a "social problem". There are only violations of rights among individuals and the law of causality.

vicious circle: a situation in which effort to solve a given problem results in aggravation of the problem or the creation of a worse problem

I don't think you're using the term "vicious circle" quite correctly.

[tjohnson]

MAY is the right word. To beat your wife or your children, to drink, smoke, or do drugs is all a choice. Just because I saw my dad doing something undesirable on a daily basis as a kid does not mean I will do it too. As a human being I have control over myself and may decide what to imitate and what not to.

But there is a correlation nevertheless, and if we know this we should intervene while the child is still young so as to prevent him repeating the behaviour.

There is no such thing as a "social problem". There are only violations of rights among individuals and the law of causality.

vicious circle: a situation in which effort to solve a given problem results in aggravation of the problem or the creation of a worse problem

I don't think you're using the term "vicious circle" quite correctly.

I'm not sure how you can say there is no such thing as a 'social problem' in one breath then say there is such a things as a 'right' in another??

If you have a drug abuse problem and you try to deal with it by taking drugs - vicious circle.

Your wife is scared of getting beaten and runs away from you and you react by beating her - vicious circle.

These people are caught in a vicious circle and need help to get out.

[georgedonnelly]

But there is a correlation nevertheless, and if we know this we should intervene while the child is still young so as to prevent him repeating the behaviour.

There may be a correlation between the consumption of donuts and the ratings of "The Simpsons" but it does not justify a declaration of national social problem status or any rights violations. You may say "but, but ... I don't WANT to violate anyone's RIGHTS!" but if you don't even accept the validity of the concept of rights it is inevitable that you will violate then when meddling in other people's affairs.

Who is this "we" that "should intervene" and what form is this "intervention" to take? How do you know the "intervention" will achieve your intended goal and not just cause more problems?

How can the boy possibly repeat the behavior if he is still a boy and hasn't even married yet?!

I'm not sure how you can say there is no such thing as a 'social problem' in one breath then say there is such a things as a 'right' in another??

I am.

If you have a drug abuse problem and you try to deal with it by taking drugs - vicious circle.

How does taking more drugs constitute an effort to solve a problem of drug abuse or addiction?

Your wife is scared of getting beaten and runs away from you and you react by beating her - vicious circle.

How does beating my wife constitute an effort to solve the problem of domestic violence?

These people are caught in a vicious circle and need help to get out.

You still do not know what the term "vicious circle" means!

Then the drug addict should hire the services of professionals who will help him overcome the addiction, if that is what he wants.

The wife should procure the means with which to defend herself against the husband's initiation of force, if that is what she wants. There are many options: leaving the husband, taking self-defense classes, buying a weapon, calling the police. This is a very simple issue of an initiation of force.

Neither they nor the goody-two-shoes-inventors-of-words-like-social-problem have any business declaring it's a "social problem" requiring the initiation of force to suspend rights or expropriate funds or whatever in order to effect a remedy.

GS: Your main debate tactic is the corruption of concepts. Demonstrate some honesty and communicate with integrity.

Have you even read Ayn Rand's works of philosophy? It does not appear so.

[sjw]

GS, by what right do you interfere with an adult's choice to extract certain elements from nature and then ingest them? I already know the answer: No answer. Because there can be no answer. You know you have no logical right, yet you advocte it anyway. Which is of course utterly and hopelessly irrational.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

GS, by what right do you interfere with an adult's choice to extract certain elements from nature and then ingest them?

I never said I had any right to do this, I said it should be available free of charge along with clean needles and counseling.

[tjohnson]

but if you don't even accept the validity of the concept of rights it is inevitable that you will violate then when meddling in other people's affairs.

You said there was no such thing as a social problem. Well then there is no such thing as a right either, using that logic.

Who is this "we" that "should intervene" and what form is this "intervention" to take? How do you know the "intervention" will achieve your intended goal and not just cause more problems?

This is supposed to be the field of social science and like any science it proceeds bu observation, experiment and theory etc.

How does taking more drugs constitute an effort to solve a problem of drug abuse or addiction?

Umm.. it doesn't, that is the point. the person is caught in a vicious circle. I think it is you who is failing to understand this term.

Then the drug addict should hire the services of professionals who will help him overcome the addiction, if that is what he wants.

Yeah, tell him that while you are stepping over him on the street next time you see one. I can't make you care about your fellow humans but I have to wonder how you can see other people suffer and not care. It makes me think there is something wrong with you.

Demonstrate some honesty and communicate with integrity.

I resent this statement, I have been trying to be very honest. To me this is an act of desperation by someone who knows he is losing an argument.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Indoctrination of children does count for something.

This statement is so vague as to be meaningless.

George,

Especially because you ain't one of those kids.

I suggest research. I realize putting on a rugged individualist air and keeping to generalities is easier and more fun, but it's a dead end intellectually.

I certainly don't consider your opinions with the same seriousness as I do the facts I research. Try some real research (and I don't mean a quick scan of a Wikipedia article, although that is a good place to start). This is just a suggestion. You sound like you can take it.

I will give you two key phrases to use on Google to get a huge amount of material to start with.

Ideological indoctrination

Cults

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

You said there was no such thing as a social problem. Well then there is no such thing as a right either, using that logic.

I explained why I consider "social problem" to be a false concept. You simply make an unsupported assertion.

How does taking more drugs constitute an effort to solve a problem of drug abuse or addiction?

Umm.. it doesn't, that is the point. the person is caught in a vicious circle. I think it is you who is failing to understand this term.

vicious circle: a situation in which effort to solve a given problem results in aggravation of the problem or the creation of a worse problem

This is the dictionary definition and the second time I posted it here for you. This is what I mean when I say you corrupt concepts. You take a concept, change it without noting it and proceed to utter perversions.

Yeah, tell him that while you are stepping over him on the street next time you see one. I can't make you care about your fellow humans but I have to wonder how you can see other people suffer and not care. It makes me think there is something wrong with you.

(1) I do not "step over" people on the street.

(2) You make unfounded assumptions without knowing anything about me. What does that say about you?

(3) Others hold value inasmuch as they have value to offer. What value is it that I should so admire and be concerned about in a person who is living their life with death as their goal?!

Demonstrate some honesty and communicate with integrity.

I resent this statement, I have been trying to be very honest. To me this is an act of desperation by someone who knows he is losing an argument.

Give me a break. I am arguing with an entity that does not believe in objective reality, uses passive voice to express opinions in the hopes they'll have greater import, makes unsupported assertions and perverts the meaning of words to suit his purpose. How could 'win' or 'lose' be defined in this context.

[georgedonnelly]

Indoctrination of children does count for something.

This statement is so vague as to be meaningless.

Especially because you ain't one of those kids.

You haven't even expressed an opinion one way or another. You only said it had merit or importance or deserved consideration.

Merit as a tool? Merit as a crime to be prosecuted?

Deserves consideration as part of the Objectivist training program? As a 'social problem' that requires 'intervention'?

This is what I mean when I say your statement is almost meaningless.

count: to have merit, importance, value, etc.; deserve consideration:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Try research. I weary of broad opinions. (btw - You did not convince me of anything. I don't think you convinced anyone else either.)

I'm stopping here.

Michael

[sjw]

I suggest research. I realize putting on a rugged individualist air and keeping to generalities is easier and more fun, but it's a dead end intellectually.

You sound like an Ayn Rand villain.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I suggest research. I realize putting on a rugged individualist air and keeping to generalities is easier and more fun, but it's a dead end intellectually.

You sound like an Ayn Rand villain.

Shayne

Which one?

All Ayn Rand villains sound like Ayn Rand.

Michael sounds like Ayn Rand!?

--Brant

Edited April 14, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You know better than that.

There is a world of difference between acting like a rugged individualist and actually being one.

If you read carefully, you would have noticed I was calling on George to stop acting and start being. Rugged individualists actually do things like study and check, not just pop out with jargon bromides at the drop of a hat. Work is not as fun as acting, I admit. But it is real. Acting is acting and always will be.

Facts are not opinions and all that...

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

You sound like an Ayn Rand villain.

Shayne

Which one?

All Ayn Rand villains sound like Ayn Rand.

Michael sounds like Ayn Rand!?

--Brant

Well, I'm stumped. Didn't know Ayn Rand had villains.

[georgedonnelly]

George,

Try research. I weary of broad opinions. (btw - You did not convince me of anything. I don't think you convinced anyone else either.)

Michael I could not care less as to whether I convinced anyone or not. It is your stated goal to persuade/convert, not mine.

You may find my purpose in this quote:

One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.

"How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?"

The Virtue of Selfishness, 73.

Instead of responding in a substantial manner, you are making vague statements and unsupported rebukes:

- "I weary of broad opinions." (Which ones and why? Do you prefer narrow opinions? What exactly is the difference?)

- "There is a world of difference between acting like a rugged individualist and actually being one." (Care to explain the basis for this statement? Have I been kicked out of the rugged individualist club just because I did not "study and check" to your satisfaction? How do you define 'rugged individualist'?)

- "Rugged individualists actually do things like study and check, not just pop out with jargon bromides at the drop of a hat." (Care to identify the "jargon bromides" I have used? Care to define 'jargon bromide'?)

- "I realize putting on a rugged individualist air and keeping to generalities is easier and more fun, but it's a dead end intellectually." (What 'airs' am I putting on now? If you want to indict based on the use of generalities you had better bring a jumbo-sized paddy-wagon.)

Obviously it is your right to respond or not as you like but as long as I am granted the privilege of posting here I believe it appropriate to question. After all, one of the goals of the website is to promote the art of living consciously, is it not?

And btw the topic of this thread is regulation of drugs, not indoctrination. I assume the owner(s) of the forum wish to follow the convention and not get too far off-topic in any given thread. It strikes me that the appropriate action is to start a new thread for a new topic, if discussion on it is desired.

Also, this is what AR has to say about an individualist:

An individualist is a man who says: "I will not run anyone's life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself."

Edited April 14, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Brant Gaede]

George,

Try research. I weary of broad opinions. (btw - You did not convince me of anything. I don't think you convinced anyone else either.)

Michael I could not care less as to whether I convinced anyone or not. It is your stated goal to persuade/convert, not mine.

You may find my purpose in this quote:

One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.

"How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?"

The Virtue of Selfishness, 73.

Uh, George, Rand said "a mere 'I don't agree with you is sufficient.'" Not, "Hit the guy on the head with a frying pan." And that's "where argument is futile." So HH has left, still believing his Objectivism-not, also believing OL is toxic. He wasn't driven away by the rigor of contrary arguments but by bad manners. Do you see my signature line? I put it there so I wouldn't sanction any Objectivist stuff and nonsense by commenting or not as if I were an Objectivist. I refuse to be an Objectivist from the inside out. I stand outside looking in in perplexity and wonder. While I used to be a "true believer," the idea of being one again is something out of a nightmare. Maybe someday you'll understand that you are defining "evil" as any-philosophical-idea thing you disagree with. This is Objectivism as a religion.

--Brant

[sjw]

Shayne,

You know better than that.

There is a world of difference between acting like a rugged individualist and actually being one.

If you read carefully, you would have noticed I was calling on George to stop acting and start being. Rugged individualists actually do things like study and check, not just pop out with jargon bromides at the drop of a hat. Work is not as fun as acting, I admit. But it is real. Acting is acting and always will be.

Facts are not opinions and all that...

Michael

I'm not following this thread perfectly closely, all I know is that George is right about the principles here except regarding how they apply to children, you evidently prefer politically-correct statists to forthright individualists, and Wolf & Brant are pretending not to know what the phrase "Ayn Rand villain" refers to and some how find this to be a clever retort rather than the stupidity it actually is.

All in all, pretty weird stuff going on in this thread, I think you guys are all on drugs.

Shayne