Home | Community | Message Board

Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals, CBD Capsules, CBD Concentrates, CBD Oils, CBD Topicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Reason vs. Emotion [Re: Phred]
    #359881 - 07/24/01 07:37 AM (21 years, 27 days ago)

> Kid writes:

"I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid foundation. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions."

Ah! I thought I was having a debate with someone for whom reason was valid. Instead I find that you follow your emotions. This explains everything.


Reasoning still operates within me. I'm still adept at logical thought. What I don't have is a moral basis. There's nothing that I morally stand on that I say, "This is Right and this is Wrong."

> Emotions are not tools of cognition. To say that something is so because "I feel it is so" is a deal-breaker as far as debate goes.

That is exactly why I'm a moral nihilist. Most people base their morality on their emotions ("what their heart/gut tells them"). I question even that.

> Your sole argument for declaring the War on Drugs constitutionally sound is that since the State is charged with protecting its citizens from violence

NOT just violence. The state has to protect people from health hazards. Violence is a small part of that.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #359902 - 07/24/01 09:30 AM (21 years, 27 days ago)

A controlled addiction. That's an oxymoron.

Not at all. Smokers have a controlled addiction. They are addicted to nicotine, but have integrated the need for nicotine into their daily routines. They are no less productive than non-smokers, and the addiction has no influence over their achievements or potential. The same is true for all addictions, they can be controlled and integrated. Once this is done, they have no influence over your life and are then a controlled addiction.

Heroin addicts can be given methodone. There are a lot of methodone clinics. Heroin addicts do not require "maintenance doses" of heroin.

Methadone is product of prohibition. It is more addictive than heroin, more toxic than heroin, has more side effects than heroin, and does not give the users the euphoria they recieve from heroin. Because of this most users simply sell their supplies of methodone to kids and buy more illegal black market heroin. The ony thing in Methodones favour is that it's legal and therefore regulated and controlled. If heroin were treated in the same way, everyone would be better off.

What do you mean look at smokers? Some people smoke two or three packs a day! You can't say that an addiction is controlled just because a person has not committed a crime and call it uncontrolled when they have committed a crime due to addiction. The whole paradox of addiction is "where is the locus of control"? It's arbitrary to define controlled/uncontrolled based on the legality of one's actions.

I'm not. I'm defining controlled/uncontrolled by the effect that the addiction has over the potential of the addict. My point is that smokers have exactly the same human potential that non-smokers have. Heroin addicts on the other hand do not, simply because of their addiction to a black market substance, and therefore integration of their addiction is impossible. If smoking were prohibited, you'd see many of the same things amongst smokers that you do amongst heroin addicts today.

Before prohibition there were many opium addicts, but there was no opium 'problem'. As soon as it was prohibited the 'problems' started to appear.

I meet a lot of people who call themselves addicts and have considered myself an addict in the past too. A lot of addicts have very fuzzy and conflicting ideas about what exactly addiction does to them.

What are you implying? My addiction doesn't have any impact upon my life, as I have integrated it into my daily routine.

The maintenance doses get higher and higher as tolerance builds, leading to increased danger of physical (and other) side effects.

I think you misunderstand what a maintenance dose is. By definitian, a maintenance dose does not increase in strength, if anything it will decrease over time, as you body becomes accustomed to operating with lower doses of the drug. Cigarettes offer maintenance doses of nicotine, and you don't tend to see smokers smoking more and more each day, or moving from light to regular cigarettes to get a bigger hit of nicotine.

No. Depends on the drug. A completely normal person can have a psychotic episode under the influence. It's not likely to happen with alcohol or LSD (as the media's made it out to be). But drugs like PCP, or DXM (esp. at sigma doses) make psychotic episodes a real concern, no matter how healthy a person may be going into the experience.

So what you're essentially saying is that these drugs can change your perception of reality. That's the whole reason people take them in the first place, and can't really be used as an argument for prohibition. Nobody would be advised to take a large dose of a psychedelic without a sitter present (Especially a sigma dose of DXM), but because of the 'information ban' associated with prohibition, unfortunately not many people are aware of this. In fact I doubt many people who use DXM even know how much syrup to drink to obtain a sigma level trip

If you're implying that these drugs can induce psychotic episodes (Rather than just the effects of the drugs) in people who do not have an underlying psychiatric conditions, then there is absoloutly no evidence of this which has not been proved to be flawed.

Actually it's very straightforward. When you're psychotic you've lost any meaningful grasp of consensus reality. Psychotic episodes probably happen pretty often, it's just that most of them don't turn out violent (and so, don't get anyone's attention).

So the problem is? I still say that the issue of psychotic episodes has nothing to do with the legality of drugs.

No it wouldn't, because most people are ashamed to admit that they're an addict and are reluctant to get help (until they're caught).

People addicted to Illegal drugs are reluctant to admit it and seek help. Smokers on the other hand are not. Just look at the number of nicotine replacement products (patches, inhalers, gum etc). If anything smokers are activly encouraged to seek help. Legalising drugs would remove the social stigma that's attached to addiction to illegal drugs, and all addicts would then be able to seek help much in the same way as smokers.

Maybe it's just part of Holland's culture not to get angry. That's simply not enough evidence to say that alcohol has any direct effect on violence and that marijuana diminishes it.

What proof do you want? Our country has a huge problem with binge drinking and the violence which accompanies this. It is obvious to me at least that marijuhana doesn't have anywhere near the same connection with violence that alcohol does. I don't drink alcohol myself because of the way alcohol makes you lose control of yourself. Cannabis doesn't do this. I can look for proof if you like, but I really don't think it is nescesarry. This is a widely known and accepted property of marijuhana.

Take care

Phil

Edited by Phyl on 07/24/01 09:21 AM.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesvoboda
Stranger
Registered: 07/21/01
Posts: 17
Re: Examples, please [Re: Kid]
    #359910 - 07/24/01 10:26 AM (21 years, 27 days ago)

Svo: You seem to wrongly believe that killing is a skill which has to be learnt. It isn't. Not every killer is more dangerous than you or I. Everybody is a potential killer. Putting "violent, dangerous murderers behind bars" is immoral and seriously mistaken.

Kid: What would you suggest we do with murderers? Let them walk the street.

Svo: Yes, this is exactly what I am advocating. Most 'murderers' need help, rather than punishment. By punishing them we only add to the total amount of harm in the world.

Kid: Killing is a learned behaviour, like anything that isn't a physiological reflex. It's possible to "get a taste for it." That's when you become dangerous.

Svo: Any learnt behaviour can be unlearnt, Kid. What we have to do is to help the 'murderers' to unlearn the killing behaviour. But this cannot be done through punishment.

Kid: I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid !
foundation.

Svo: You don't need a 'solid foundation'. It doesn't exist. Just like morality doesn't objectively exist. Morality need not be something solid and rigid. My understanding of morality is that it is a mental construct which is flexible and constantly evolving.

Kid: I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions.

Svo: The problem with this is that you don't always control and choose your emotions. If you follow your emotions you are effectively their slave - you are out of control, you are powerless. In contrast, reasoning empowers you and allows you to choose how you act.

Kid: It's not the law that tells me not to kill people. It's my emotions. Hurting people physically isn't fun. I know that.

Svo: Is it emotions or is it reasoning??? 'Hurting people is not fun' clearly indicates that you apply your knowledge and experience, not just being a slave you your emotions!

Kid: Killing people is just something I'm curious about doing.

Svo: Why?

Kid: As for claiming ownership being violent, if it is, then you're prooving that some violence is necessary. How can you have a piece of food without claiming it's ownership?

Svo: Very easily. Just like you are, I am a 'nihilist' in some respect. I deny the concept of property and the concept of rights. If you start reasoning with a premise that no one owns anything, and if no one is eating the food at the moment, there is noting which could stop you eating it.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #360188 - 07/24/01 07:12 PM (21 years, 26 days ago)

> They are no less productive than non-smokers, and the addiction has no influence over their achievements or potential.

Except for the lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, and heightened blood pressure.

> My point is that smokers have exactly the same human potential that non-smokers have.

Then you're incorrect, as smokers have decreased cardiovascular functioning, as well as typically higher anxiety levels.

> What are you implying?

Addiction seems to be a kind of paradox. It's a release of control to gain control over something.

> So what you're essentially saying is that these drugs can change your perception of reality. That's the whole reason people take them in the first place, and can't really be used as an argument for prohibition.

It can if it reliably caused psychotic episodes. I don't anyone would argue that a human being has a right to make him/herself dangerous by self-inducing psychosis.

> but because of the 'information ban' associated with prohibition,

What are you talking about?

> If you're implying that these drugs can induce psychotic episodes (Rather than just the effects of the drugs) in people who do not have an underlying psychiatric conditions, then there is absoloutly no evidence of this which has not been proved to be flawed.

I'd like to see some more info. about that. That's simply not true. If you intoxicate yourself enough you can loose contact with reality enough to have a psychotic episode. It's a very basic principle.

> So the problem is?

It CAN happen.

> Legalising drugs would remove the social stigma that's attached to addiction to illegal drugs, and all addicts would then be able to seek help much in the same way as smokers.

Ask an alcoholic if they are ashamed of their addiction or not. Ask them if they feel stigmatized for being an alcoholic. It goes far beyond legality. The issue is that the person feels dependent on a substance (that the "can't handle their own shit without a crutch").





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Examples, please [Re: svoboda]
    #360196 - 07/24/01 07:25 PM (21 years, 26 days ago)

> Svo: Yes, this is exactly what I am advocating. Most 'murderers' need help, rather than punishment. By punishing them we only add to the total amount of harm in the world.

Yes, they do. Part of making sure a person doesn't kill again is by making them feel guilty. Punishment is a part of this. Also, letting murderers walk the street while undergoing treatment would be a very very bad idea. It would take more than one therapy session to ensure that a violent criminal would not become a recidivist.

> But this cannot be done through punishment.

Why not? Certainly corporal punishment wouldn't work. Moral punishment though? Social punishment? Do you suggest we reward and cuddle murderers?

> Svo: You don't need a 'solid foundation'. It doesn't exist. Just like morality doesn't objectively exist. Morality need not be something solid and rigid. My understanding of morality is that it is a mental construct which is flexible and constantly evolving.

And it just so happens that my form of morality is flexible enough to be self-contradictory and to deny it's own existence.

> Svo: The problem with this is that you don't always control and choose your emotions. If you follow your emotions you are effectively their slave - you are out of control, you are powerless. In contrast, reasoning empowers you and allows you to choose how you act.

You cannot act without emotion! Tell me how you would evaluate your own behaviour without any emotions whatsoever? You would have no motivation to do anything. Why would you choose one act over another? Why would having sex not appeal more than jumping off a building or crawling around for hours on end? Don't give bullshit. Emotions might be arbitrarily programmed, but they still provide the motives for our behaviour and goals. It's reasoning that effictively allows us to acheive those goals.

> 'Hurting people is not fun' clearly indicates that you apply your knowledge and experience, not just being a slave you your emotions!

I can say "hurting people is not fun" without feeling repulsed by the idea of murder; this wouldn't effictively prevent me from killing someone.

It's just like an addiction. You know that indulging in the substance isn't helpful; it wouldn't be a good idea; but you do it anyway. Your emotion defies your reason.

You underestimate the power of emotion. Your rationality is not 100% in control. Your emotions are the far more powerful entity, as much as you dislike admitting this "feminized" aspect of yourself.

> Svo: Why [are you curious about killing people]?

Oh are you going to psychoanalyse me now?

> Svo: Very easily. Just like you are, I am a 'nihilist' in some respect. I deny the concept of property and the concept of rights. If you start reasoning with a premise that no one owns anything, and if no one is eating the food at the moment, there is noting which could stop you eating it.

And what if someone else comes along and claims the food for themselves?

In prehistoric times your type of reasoning would rended you dead.
"That's my food."
"You cannot own food. Food is for all to share."
[Rock smashed over head.] "Food is mine now. I am alive for another day. You are dead."

All of your "conceptual engineering" about property doesn't have much practicality.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #360198 - 07/24/01 07:26 PM (21 years, 26 days ago)

WOO watch the battling egos

:frown:


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #360536 - 07/25/01 05:40 AM (21 years, 26 days ago)

Except for the lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, and heightened blood pressure.
There are risks with some drugs, yes, but there are risks with everything. Have you seen the number of obese people around recently? They have all the problems you've listed above, and more. Does this mean we should outlaw fatty foods? Maybe we should implement some kind of compulsory rationing scheme? Ultimately this comes down to an issue of freedom. If someone wants to do something that may harm them, then what business is this of the government? They don't seem to care if I go to the supermarket, buy a bottle of beach and drink the whole thing.
Surely the aim should be to reduce the harm caused by drugs, and the only way to do this is to legalise, regulate and control them. Most problems are caused by contaminates in the drugs, and not the actual drugs themselves, and these are only there because of prohibition and lack of quality control.

Then you're incorrect, as smokers have decreased cardiovascular functioning, as well as typically higher anxiety levels.
What needs to be measured is the impact of this upon their lives. It's all well and good saying they have decreased cardiovascular functioning, but what does this mean in real terms? I don't see smokers leading generally less productive or satisfying lives compared to non-smokers, although some of them die earlier. This is their choice. If someone chooses to smokes, they know the risks and have decided to take their chances.

It can if it reliably caused psychotic episodes
One thing they don't do is 'reliably' cause psychotic episodes. Psychedelics can induce a state of altered consciousness, as you know, but this is the reason people take them in the first place, and far more people find this beneficial rather than a problem. These psycotic episodes as you call them are the reason for taking the drug in the first place. Non-psychedelics very rarely induce psychosis of any form. My main problem with the war on some drugs is with Heroin and cocaine, which do not cause psychosis.

I don't anyone would argue that a human being has a right to make him/herself dangerous by self-inducing psychosis.
I would not argue that because taking a drug does not automatically make a person dangerous, as your statement implies. All people have the capacity to be dangerous to others regardless of whether they have taken any drugs or not. A huge majority of attacks and homicides are not related to drug psychosis in any way what so ever.

What are you talking about?
Just say NO... Drugs are bad m'kay....

If you intoxicate yourself enough you can loose contact with reality enough to have a psychotic episode. It's a very basic principle.
This is true of a few psychedelics, but not most drugs targetted by the war on some drugs. If taken to levels where you lose contact with reality, most drugs leave you incapable of harming others as you are incapacitated.

It CAN happen.
Everything has a risk involved with at. Let's all live in padded cells, then we'll all be a lot safer.

The issue is that the person feels dependent on a substance (that the "can't handle their own shit without a crutch").
So essentially it's is social/psychological problem, and banning the substance will not have any effect except that the addict will be forced to use more dangerous illegal supplies for their fix, and will be forced into a viscious circle of crime.

Take care

Phil



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSyngenor
member

Registered: 09/17/00
Posts: 31
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: hunterthompson]
    #360599 - 07/25/01 10:38 AM (21 years, 26 days ago)

The WOD is based on the iron law of human nature, which no constitution can ever overturn: sadistic gratification is an end in and of itself.

The Syngenor


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #360734 - 07/25/01 03:51 PM (21 years, 25 days ago)

> If someone wants to do something that may harm them, then what business is this of the government?

Their business in it should be minimal if you want to emphasize individual rights, which the USA clearly strives to acheive. It's the society (and culture) around it that wants to suppress drugs.

> This is true of a few psychedelics, but not most drugs targetted by the war on some drugs.

Amphetamines can induce psychosis. Same with steroids.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehunterthompson
I climb rocks

Registered: 11/16/00
Posts: 189
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #361325 - 07/26/01 01:06 PM (21 years, 24 days ago)

you just don't trust huimans to police themselves, and that fact that you have little faith in human nature is very very sad.

-=LaTeS+_



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: hunterthompson]
    #361333 - 07/26/01 01:20 PM (21 years, 24 days ago)

> you just don't trust huimans to police themselves, and that fact that you have little faith in human nature is very very sad.

I like how you just assume that because I'm arguing against the popular viewpoint of this board that I really believe what I'm saying. Also, take a look at a number of my past posts on this board: whenever anyone comes up with somekind of analysis of who am I or where I stand politically I always make sure to protest their assesment, reminding them: this isn't what I really think.

I don't trust humans to follow a state's law, and I shouldn't. I'm sure the majority of peopel on this board have broken the law, at least once.
I don't believe that there is any such thing as a universal Right or Wrong. Moral valuess change. People don't always agree on morals. People don't always follow morals.
I'm not even sure what sense you mean "police" themselves? Individually, I thnk most people do a damn fine job of policing themselves. Most people are not violent criminals. If you mean "police themselves" in terms of enforcing social rules; I think we do a pretty damn fine job of that. Some might argue that we do it too well.

Now on to human nature. It seems to me to be a simply matter of information processing that human beings will never understand the totality of human nature. Period. My experiences with "human nature" are only a small mixture on the wide spectrum of human experience. I know that people can be kind. I know that people can be creul.

Don't start telling me what I do or don't trust, because you can't tell from what I post. I argue for the sake of arguing. I don't argue for what I "believe" or against what I "disbelieve."
The same applies for my areas of "faith." And just consider for a second: if I had little faith in human nature would I really decide to live in a big city? to go out, unarmed, at night, walking around some of this city's worst neighborhoods without fear of being harmed? No. I know that most people won't fuck with you for no reason.

So don't start telling me what I do or don't believe. This post isn't a personal issue, for me. It's a discussion. I'm practicing something I enjoy very much: arguing, debating.

Another thing I'm starting to get sick of, is that people do start to make personal comments based on what I argue. My arguments are born on a whim. Don't look at my arguments and criticize me as a person, or my character, or my personality, based on my defiant, argumentative style of posts.

This thread is not about me. My posts are rarely about me. Don't start making everything I post to be an indication of my identity.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline~`Tursiops truncatus`~
enthusiast

Registered: 11/02/00
Posts: 105
Loc: CO... UsA
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #362265 - 07/28/01 01:29 AM (21 years, 23 days ago)

The war-like mentallity is a sad sad state of mind...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhyl
old hand
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 597
Loc: United Kingdom
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: ~`Tursiops truncatus`~]
    #363404 - 07/30/01 07:03 AM (21 years, 21 days ago)

The war-like mentallity is a sad sad state of mind

That depends on a persons motivation. Don't always assume the worst, as that too is a sad state of mind.

Right back at the beginning of this thread Kid stated that he didn't support the war on drugs. Why do you think he continued to post? Because he just wanted an argument? What would he stand to gain from that?
By adopting the role of prohibitionist he has encouraged debate which would otherwise have gone unspoken, and others can now read this thread, taking note of both sides arguments, and then make their own opinions on the subject. Without Kids oposition this would not have been possible.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals, CBD Capsules, CBD Concentrates, CBD Oils, CBD Topicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 923 11 06/27/03 06:12 PM
by Anonymous
* William F. Buckley Jr. on Marijuana Prohibition Divided_Sky 457 0 08/23/04 07:29 PM
by Divided_Sky
* The Libertarian implications of traffic laws
( 1 2 all )
Phred 1,750 32 08/22/04 04:34 PM
by Phred
* What the hell are we going to do about this prohibition???
( 1 2 all )
DirtMcgirt 904 23 12/12/04 09:12 PM
by kadakuda
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,367 13 03/15/04 09:25 PM
by Phred
* The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law Evolving 3,467 17 02/10/04 03:28 PM
by silversoul7
* Possible legal challenge of psylocybe laws?
( 1 2 all )
Randolph_Carter 2,621 31 12/05/03 05:24 PM
by Annapurna1
* Changing drug laws
( 1 2 all )
stan 4,249 22 07/31/02 07:31 AM
by toxick

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,384 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.