BIGUN 1,483 #26 March 29, 2009 Quiz.. Wow, Tom. According to the mini-quiz - Over the past 10 years I've gone from Centrist to Libertarian. I may have to hunt down a longer test to validate.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #27 March 29, 2009 Your obsevation could be due to the fact that as the level of THC in the blood increases, the desire to use guns decreases.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #28 March 29, 2009 QuoteTHC in the blood increases, the desire to use guns decreases. Perhaps notNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #29 March 29, 2009 (I'm changing around the order of response because I subjectively think it makes more sense in my reply.) QuoteGenerally speaking, I don't like the concept of people's subjective feelings having a huge influence on my freedoms. While I could probably come up with an exception if I thought about it long enough, in general I concur. QuoteHow do you reconcile ethics with objectivity? That's a huge question that would require more space than I suspect most would be willing to read. It is a very interesting question to me. First off, I would argue that objectivity is an ethic. (The postmodernists argued against objectivity - that all/everything is subjective, which might work for literture but is less adept w/r/t quantum physics, i.e., a thinly veiled reference to the Alan B Sokol affair.) From a normative ethics perspective, it's all subjective (norms, values, and prescriptives). Normative ethics is about subjective valueing of one thing (e.g., freedom) over another (subjugation, tyranny, or survival of the fittest). One then makes a case why the one is a more ethical value than the other. Valuation and concepts of freedom have changed over time. And I think technology will change them further. Personally, I think ethics should (i.e., a normative) seek to built on objective foundations (otherwise you have moral relativism/situational ethics) ... and that was what I was trying to get to with my questions: what are the core ethical reasons to either object to or argue for drug decriminalization. Not economics. Not epidemiology of violence. Not dependent or proximal factors (financing terrorism, human trafficking). Those are all important (!) but what's the underlying ethical basis on which one builds the rest of one's argument. QuoteI normally see you as a very objective person. You talking about "ethics" is, for me, kinda different. The ethics part of my post were questions to which I don't have specific answers. I haven't invested a lot of time or energy cogitating on the meta-ethics of drugs. What do you see as subjective? And why? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #30 March 29, 2009 My opinion can be summed up from three of the items here: http://www.lp.org/platform Quote ... 1.2 Personal Privacy We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. ... 1.5 Crime and Justice Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. 1.6 Self-Defense The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #31 March 29, 2009 QuoteWhat do you see as subjective? And why? Just the overall, basic idea that "drugs are bad . . . mkay?" kind of statements that I hear so frequently from the vast majority of people.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #32 March 29, 2009 QuoteTHC in the blood increases, the desire to use guns decreases. >Perhaps not Well, you gotta protect your crop you know..... ...and I'm not too sure these guys really care about laws neway, muchless gun laws.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #33 March 29, 2009 Quote Just the overall, basic idea that "drugs are bad . . . mkay?" kind of statements that I hear so frequently from the vast majority of people. And it is so infuriating that today we have politicians who publicly admit to having used marijuana, but have no interest in getting rid of laws that would have torpedoed their own careers had they been arrested as kids. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #34 March 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat do you see as subjective? And why? Just the overall, basic idea that "drugs are bad . . . mkay?" kind of statements that I hear so frequently from the vast majority of people. Now I'm confused. I wrote: "Is there something inherently *bad* or *wrong* about recreational drugs?" And then went through some lines of ethical reasoning to probe that question. I didn't give an answer because I don't have a strong sense one way or the other from either an ethical or an empirical perspective. I'm comfortable with "I don't know"'s, especially when it's outside my areas of expertise. My post was a distilled version of some internal dialogue to get to core ideas of why drugs are seen as bad; it was not a nornative statement that they are anything. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #35 March 29, 2009 Quote Now I'm confused. I wrote: "Is there something inherently *bad* or *wrong* about recreational drugs?" And then went through some lines of ethical reasoning to probe that question. I didn't give an answer because I don't have a strong sense one way or the other from either an ethical or an empirical perspective. I'm comfortable with "I don't know"'s, especially when it's outside my areas of expertise. Which is what -I- thought was unusual. Normally you come to an objective opinion rather than just letting it hang out there in subjective space.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #36 March 29, 2009 QuoteMy opinion can be summed up from three of the items here: http://www.lp.org/platform Quote ... 1.2 Personal Privacy We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. ... So w/r/t drugs, that's largely an argument implicitly built on the idea that there is an inherent liberty (i.e., an ethical concept) to affect one’s brain chemistry, for non-medical reasons. And that free will includes the right to alter temporarily or permanently one's own brain chemistry via non-endogenous means, i.e., ingesting/inhaling/injecting something as long as it does not harm another. And that autonomy of personhood and autonomy of thought (i.e., the ethical concept underlying personal privacy) argues for one to have the choice to do whatever one wants to one’s brain. Thought is the most fundamental privacy. (Think 'truth serum' and MRIs for intelligence operations.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #37 March 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteKinda interesting... Thoughts? I think I don't fit into your observation. I'm for less legislation of marijuana, but I don't want more gun legislation. Ditto.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #38 March 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteTHC in the blood increases, the desire to use guns decreases. Perhaps not I have never had a cop tell me they would rather deal with someone who had been smoking pot than someone that's liquored up (I have asked rather a few). Marijuana has its drawbacks, but they do not include making users sloppy and violent. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #39 March 29, 2009 Sloppy yes, violent no. You have decreased reaction time, but increased steadiness. I think there should be less regulation on both. If you give either to a kid however, I expect you to be behind bars for quite some time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #40 March 30, 2009 QuoteIs there something inherently *bad* or *wrong* about recreational drugs? No. Whether it be caffeine, cannabis, cocaine, wine, etc., most people have their vice(s). Of those, I suspect most of them derive some pleasure from the vice, generally without harm to others. QuoteIs there an inherent liberty (as an ethical concept) to affect one’s brain chemistry, for non-medical reasons? Does free will include the right to alter temporarily or permanently my own brain chemistry via non-endogenous means, i.e., ingesting/inhaling/injecting something rather than one of the neurochemicals generated by my brain? I believe there is such an inherent liberty. When I was a kid, we had too matching barstools. One of them had a much looser bearing, and would spin pretty much freely. My older brother and I would fight over that one. We could get it spinning quickly and experience a head rush. I believe it is human nature to seek out means of taking breaks from sobriety. I don't think it is inherently unhealthy, provided one is not trying to avoid sobriety entirely. I've done lots of things in my life in the name of a rush. Street racing, skydiving, chess, gambling, pool, and, yes, drugs, to name a few. I don't think it is realistic to consider drugs to be inherently more dangerous than endogenous means of altering my brain chemistry. QuoteOr is there an inherent ethics of prohibition because drugs affect one’s ability to think as oneself, e.g., a non-medical augmentation? I think it could be argued that, at least with respect to some drugs, one is often better able to think clearly "as oneself" while under the influence than when sober. In vino veritas. QuoteIs it an issue of prohibition or harm reduction? Prohibition does not work. Harm reduction is a better philosophical approach to policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kool-Aid 0 #41 March 31, 2009 Quote Quote Kinda interesting... Thoughts? I think I don't fit into your observation. I'm for less legislation of marijuana, but I don't want more gun legislation. Lets all go smoke out and shoot a few guns!!!!! If we can get off the couch for something other than pizza and ice cream!!!!!!!Oh Yea!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #42 March 31, 2009 I think a forced pairing comparison on the following list is called for: Marijuana Guns Alcohol Sex Rock & roll Skydiving Gambling Taxes Censorship Birth control Flag burning Nascar (just seeing if you're still reading) Do people who want to eliminate gambling support censorship? Are those that want a lower drinking age against birth control? Is a gun control advocate more or less likely to take up skydiving?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #43 March 31, 2009 Thats what I'm talking about. What about handling guns WHILE smoking marijuana? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #44 March 31, 2009 QuoteWhat about handling guns WHILE smoking marijuana? A steadier hand for improved accuracy, especially when shooting at FOOD!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #45 March 31, 2009 Quote Quote Now I'm confused. I wrote: "Is there something inherently *bad* or *wrong* about recreational drugs?" And then went through some lines of ethical reasoning to probe that question. I didn't give an answer because I don't have a strong sense one way or the other from either an ethical or an empirical perspective. I'm comfortable with "I don't know"'s, especially when it's outside my areas of expertise. Which is what -I- thought was unusual. Normally you come to an objective opinion rather than just letting it hang out there in subjective space. You are correct that I rarely invoke ethics and that I rarely invoke subjectives without acknowledge/indicators/caveats in my arguments. It’s not because strongly-considered ethical stances are lacking or because I don’t find ethical questions fascinating or important ... but because I learned from being in the 'big-boy/big-girl' world of business that you can’t argue normatives. You can argue economics, efficiency, strategy, market share/penetration, all sorts of things that an MBA can rotely recite, and argue based on the CFR … but not ethics/morals. Almost everyone wants to believe that they are ethical; few are really willing to accept consequences for such behavior. (And the last refuge of the idealist is cynicism.) There are very, very, very few for-profit businesses that consider independently the moral or ethical ramifications of actions; the bottom line is ultimate. That’s not a normative stance or a pejorative; it’s reality. And there’s nothing wrong with that *if* there is a strong civil and criminal legal system with effective implementation and oversight. Ethical business owners should want that. Ethical business-owners benefit. They are not at competitive disadvantage compared to their unethical competitors. (See Adam Smith’s other book.) Ethical reasoning can be strongly objective. Ethos is one-third of classical analytical reasoning (rhetoric, in its classic meaning not pejorative popular conceptualization) along with logos and pathos. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #46 March 31, 2009 QuoteQuoteOr is there an inherent ethics of prohibition because drugs affect one’s ability to think as oneself, e.g., a non-medical augmentation? I think it could be argued that, at least with respect to some drugs, one is often better able to think clearly "as oneself" while under the influence than when sober. In vino veritas. Thanks for the reply. Hmmmm ... "in wine, there is truth" ... "or "in wine, one is true"? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #47 March 31, 2009 QuoteWhat about handling guns WHILE smoking marijuana? Just be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot while trying to light the bong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #48 March 31, 2009 QuoteHmmmm ... "in wine, there is truth" ... "or "in wine, one is true"? I've always considered the translation to be, "In wine, truth." Of course, I wasn't referring exclusively to wine or alcohol in my post.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #49 March 31, 2009 Guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule. I'd love to see less legislation regarding the use of both guns and weed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #50 April 1, 2009 Personally, I think guns AND marijuana should be legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
