68 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

Eh, I don't like Kant cause he's very.... strong on this idea that things can be universal. I am strongly against any universal anythings. In my understanding, everything is relative. Relative to different things, sure, but relative nonetheless. I blame physics.

 

As far as I'm concerned, in order to argue anything, you need to first define your frame of reference. One can argue as from the human perspective, from one's own perspective, or if you're particularly good at it, from someone else or some other group's perspective. But none are objectively better than any else, only subjectively better. For example, I believe my point of view is better than everyone else's, but I know that everyone believes theirs is better than mine, and we're all right and wrong at the same time, because right and wrong make about as much sense as up and down in space.

 

This goes some way to explain why I seem to have many, sometimes contradictory, points of view. And why (to at least some people) I seem to backstab my own principles. 

 

Anyway, this whole drugs thing comes from my point of view, trying to develop a system that accommodates the human point of view. That's hard, so I have to keep reformulating

[Haflinger]

Eh, I don't like Kant cause he's very.... strong on this idea that things can be universal.

This is why I don't agree with Kant.
 
You on the other hand tend to insist on immutable principles. You really need to work on this whole self-knowledge trip, eh?

 

Drugs in particular really bring out your Kantian side.

[Lord Draculea]

Did you study philosophy, Alexander?

[Redezra]

Eh, I don't like Kant cause he's very.... strong on this idea that things can be universal.

This is why I don't agree with Kant.
 
You on the other hand tend to insist on immutable principles. You really need to work on this whole self-knowledge trip, eh?

 

Drugs in particular really bring out your Kantian side.

I've not said immutable. At all. I've said that they interfere with whatever I and others perceive to be "good" behavior for western, modern society. From that standpoint, that's a valid argument to make. It is not universal, it is simply locally true.

[Haflinger]

Except that, when asked to justify this belief, you produce circular arguments. Your beliefs are good by definition for modern society, because modern society agrees with your beliefs.

[wildbillhkhk]

I used to not smoke weed. I had no friends, straight F's, barely passed state exams to pass the grades, and did not get involved in extra-curricular activites. Then I smoked some weed and drank at a party with some other losers who then became my first two friends in grade school (7th grade) then I got nearly straight A's, scored in the top 10 percent consistently on standardized testing, and did football, weight training, science club, Robotics, JROTC, and a few others. And my social circle included EVERYBODY in the school, including the faculty and kids who weren't into drugs. Intoxicants vastly improved my quality of life, and even though I switched schools my senior year, Nothing changed except demographics. Went from hicks to big city pansies no problem.


You wouldn't believe how many conconservatives smoke pot. I smoked with a highway cop in tx!

Anyways, drugs are not bad, I don't care how hard. If somebody is going to be stupid enough to start using drugs like meth, heroin, crack/cocaine ect. Then they deserve the effects that come with them. All we can do is hope they OD before they reproduce, but that is harldly case.

you can't say intoxication didn't lead or help lead man to civilization. The oldest alcohol jugs go back over 9000 years. Hundreds of thousands of years ago the "jungle" receded from north africa causing the apes or prehistoric men to stand taller and look for new food sources. Who's to say they didn't start flipping over cow patties and eating psilocybin shrooms?

"When a person takes small amounts of psilocybin visual acuity improves. They can actually see slightly better, and this means that animals allowing psilocybin into their food chain would have increased hunting success, which means increased food supply, which means increased reproductive success, which is the name of the game in evolution. It is the organism that manages to propagate itself numerically that is successful. The presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack- hunting primates caused the individuals that were ingesting the psilocybin to have increased visual acuity. At slightly higher doses of psilocybin there is sexual arousal, erection, and everything that goes under the term arousal of the central nervous system. Again, a factor which would increase reproductive success is reinforced." -Terence McKenna

Eating shooms could have been mans first social ritual.

There is overwhelming evidence that William Shakespeare was a pothead, not that I'm a fan of his work or anything.

cannabis saves lives. Alcohol in moderation is healthy.

Edited by wildbillhkhk, 14 November 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Redezra]

Except that, when asked to justify this belief, you produce circular arguments. Your beliefs are good by definition for modern society, because modern society agrees with your beliefs.

Which is because it is, indeed, a feedback loop. And that's fine because it's not real and has no objective merit. 

 

"But Redezra," you might say, "What if society thought it was a good idea to take crystal meth?" And that's a fair point.

 

But it doesn't, and so my world is formulated to know it's a bad idea because of physical damage to self and others, economic damage to self and others, emotional damage to self and others, all which make it look like a bad idea. 

Now because a lot of people like myself think it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea in terms of society, looping the whole thing back on itself.

 

So yes, in a theoretical world in which there was no negative repercussions to drug use, or one in which "negative" was assigned differently so as to remove negative repercussions, I would think differently of this.

 

The problem in that argument is that you don't go around snapping shots up skirts of women because there exists a possible reality where nobody thinks that's a bad idea and people like that are well adjusted citizens.

[Haflinger]

Aha, now you're transferring from "every drug that happens to be on a schedule somewhere as a controlled substance" - which is your usual argument - to crystal meth, something you know I'm against.

[Redezra]

Aha, now you're transferring from "every drug that happens to be on a schedule somewhere as a controlled substance" - which is your usual argument - to crystal meth, something you know I'm against.

 

Example. Good example too.