True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[Quantum Windbag]

well to be accurate, the Myers-Briggs "personality test" is held in as much esteem as an astrological chart in psych., circles, but the lay ppl love it and put much store in it, for some reason.
and those who may show up as an intj or an entj or any other of the 16 combinations will more often than not be in an entirely different "myers/briggs pigeon hole" under different circumstances, on a different day.

That doesn't change the fact that genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners.

well, ill tell you what i tell everyone who makes spurious connections like, "genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners"....
and that is; are you sure youre not confusing cause and effect?

I am pointing out a correlation, which is why I used the word tend. No confusion at all.

 

[pix]

That doesn't change the fact that genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners.

well, ill tell you what i tell everyone who makes spurious connections like, "genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners"....
and that is; are you sure youre not confusing cause and effect?

I am pointing out a correlation, which is why I used the word tend. No confusion at all.

id like to see the data which leads you to make that spurious statement which you refer to as a fact, none the less, since your statement "the fact that genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners" is so confusing. i know stacks of inventors. few are loners. none are crazy quiet.

 

[bripat9643]

But let me answer your question as to who invented English ?

The society of English speaking people invented it.,

They are collectively the entity of people (Angloglots)who are still reinventing it, every day.

In other words, the definition of "society" depends on what you're talking about. If you are talking about language, it refers to one group of people. If you're referring to technology, it refers to another group of people. According to your theory, a person can belong to hundreds of different societies simultaneously. So when you buy a house or watch a television program or board a plane to visit your mother, who do you owe for these benefits of "society?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

well, ill tell you what i tell everyone who makes spurious connections like, "genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners"....
and that is; are you sure youre not confusing cause and effect?

I am pointing out a correlation, which is why I used the word tend. No confusion at all.

id like to see the data which leads you to make that spurious statement which you refer to as a fact, none the less, since your statement "the fact that genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners" is so confusing. i know stacks of inventors. few are loners. none are crazy quiet.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and fact?

 

[Oddball]

Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

Yeah, we heard you the first time.

Now, quantify "society" in no uncertain and/or nebulous terms.

I defy you.

 

[Billy000]

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right.

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addictinvg. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right.

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addictinvg. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

 

[Billy000]

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

You really need me to define society for you? The general populace asshole. And no, the concept of freedom in general is not harmful. certain small freedoms are however.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

You really need me to define society for you? The general populace asshole. And no, the concept of freedom in general is not harmful. certain small freedoms are however.

You asked a question that involves a word that means different things to different people depending on their level of education and intelligence. Since you have repeatedly used words in one way, and then objected to other people using the same words in a different way, I want you to explain what your art degree in fake science has taught you about the meaning of the word society.

While you are at it, explain how it can by harmed. Does it have pain receptors and a central nervous system, or does it feel pain through a magical process that involves fake science and art? Do small freedoms negatively impact the way magic transfers the signals, or does this all happen inside your delusional world where studying art gives you a knowledge of reality unavailable to mere mortals?

 

[Darkwind]

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

You really need me to define society for you? The general populace asshole. And no, the concept of freedom in general is not harmful. certain small freedoms are however.

Do you know what happens when you parse your way to your very targeted belief?

You find yourself in a position which we used to term, "Painted yourself into a corner".

If you have to granulate your position to the nth degree.....you have no real point. There comes a point in which you cannot escape your own trap.

 

[FA_Q2]

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society.

That statement is absolutely silly though. You are taking a complex issue and trying to oversimplify it. Other effects matter and they matter more than the drug itself tbh.

We could certainly reduce the drug use if we just lined up anyone that was suspected of drug use and shot them. Would that be positive for ‘society?’ Of course not. There are real factors that are not as crazy that we are dealing with in relation to drug abuse. The destructive outcome from going to prison (particularly for a medical issue), crime surrounding the import of drugs, addiction and its impact on family/friends. There are tons of tangential effects of drug abuse and many are worse than the drug itself. Ignoring that and stating that the amount of people is the only thing you care about shows a complete lack of understanding the real problems that we are facing with addiction.

Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

No, it is not common sense. Your ‘common sense’ completely ignores the fact that there are so many LEGAL means for people to get high. As I stated and will reiterate, bath salts, paint, markers, refrigerants etc. are legal items that are used in place of these drugs. Do you really think that

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

If you had read, there are even uses that are not medicinal. Methamphetamines, for example, are commonly used by bomber pilots to keep them awake. They are issued to them. Totally a performance deal. They might not be ‘recreational’ but the type of use was NOT what we were discussing. We were discussing (with this part of the argument) that legal products are safer than black market products. Realizing this will go a long way in understanding the benefits of allowing people to make their own poor decisions without forcing them into the worst possible market.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

Saying that it won’t prevent people from ruining their lives completely misses the point. Of course it will still ruin lives, that is the nature of drugs. The idea that it is more toxic to people’s lives legal than when it is illegal though is a poor argument.

Really, your arguments have used a lot of ‘I feel’ and ‘I think’ and are centered around the simple fact that you don’t like drug abuse. I am sorry but this is not really a subjective matter. There are hard realities here all shown to us during prohibition. Illegal alcohol with the murder and pillaging that it brought was not better than simple legalized and controlled alcohol. We have been through this before, why is it so difficult to relate the two identical concepts.

Further, when we started making drugs illegal, we did not have a worse problem with their abuse than we have now. You think these designer drugs are somehow new? That major drugs that were as potent and deadly did not exist then? Of course they did but people that are willing to thrash their bodies with drug abuse are going to do so no matter what the law is and, more importantly, no matter what drugs are available. There is ALWAYS a way to get high, that is just the reality of it. Better to put some controls on that rather than let it run rampant.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

the best society is a free society

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right.

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addictinvg. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I don't want someone that has no intelligent understanding of what a drug even does to be dictating what someone else should or should not be consuming into thier body. Just the fact that you lump Meth and cocaine into the same exact catagory shows you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about. If you are going to only perpetuate myths then mind your own business.

 

[PratchettFan]

‘Obligation’ is not the right word. You freely choose to participate in society and pay for that participation through various means. By demanding that we are obligated, you are essentially saying that there is no options here. I am not obligated as I can leave. I can join another society or leave this one for solitude.

By declaring that ‘society’ gives us the things that we have you are also obscuring the reality here. Society most certainly did not give him the plow – he purchased it and not from society either but from an individual. Society is simply the name of the engine. People are the benefactors here. Society creates nothing and does nothing, the people working together in that society do.

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

I realize that you are saying that. What I am telling you is that you are NOT obligated. You pay for that already. It is a free exchange of resources – your taxes if you will – and there is no ‘obligation.’ You have made that trade and that is the end of it.

You are incorrect on the plow. The purchase was merely one stage in the acquistion of the plow. The plow had to be manufactured, the parts manufactured, the raw materials turned into parts, the ores mined and smelted to create the raw materials, payrolls had to be paid, bank accounts created and used, inspections done, transportation provided, roads built and maintained, railways built and maintained, ships built and manned, trade agreements negotiated,... The list could go on for pages to describe what had to happen before he could purchase the plow. Without the interaction and infrastructure, which is what society is ultimately, the plow would not exist to be purchased. The money used to make the purchase would not exist.

And none of that refutes the point. At every stage, there was an owner and a purchaser. One traded goods or work for another. The entire process is called ‘society’ but it has nothing to do with purchasing the plow. It was just a long series of people trading one thing or service for another. Individuals built that plow, traded for each step of that plow and got that plow to its end market. On that same token those individuals likely represented thousands of different ‘societies.’ Which one are you saying that skull is ‘obligated’ to or which one created the item? Was it the small society of the factory workers or the larger one representing the country or possibly the loosely related one of the truckers? The reality is that it was all and yet it was none. Society is just the amorphous name that we call small and large groups of interrelated individuals. Society is responsible for nothing in truth as it is the individuals themselves, working together, that creates. Society is just what we call that interaction.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

*sigh*
No, you are not ‘dependent’ on society because you use a computer. You are simply interacting with others and building on that interaction. That is not dependence; it is a mutual beneficial relationship. Dependence is a one way road. This is a two way interaction with give and take.

We look at the word "obligation" differently. If I meet my obligations that does not mean those obligations do not exist. I simply have met them. I pay my mortgage, but that does not mean my obligation to pay my mortgage goes away.

Saying it is interaction does not mean you are not dependent. Take away your access to that interaction and you will quickly see just how dependent you are. The infrastructure and interaction is society. Your entire way of life is utterly dependent upon your participation in that society. Look around yourself and ask what is it that you produce by yourself which will keep you alive. Do you grow your own food, make your own cloth, build your own shelter - all using raw materials you obtained on your own? Unlikely. Do you even have access to potable water? Most people don't. Take away society and the vast majority of us die in a matter of weeks. If that is not dependence, I have no idea what is.

 

[PratchettFan]

‘Obligation’ is not the right word. You freely choose to participate in society and pay for that participation through various means. By demanding that we are obligated, you are essentially saying that there is no options here. I am not obligated as I can leave. I can join another society or leave this one for solitude.

By declaring that ‘society’ gives us the things that we have you are also obscuring the reality here. Society most certainly did not give him the plow – he purchased it and not from society either but from an individual. Society is simply the name of the engine. People are the benefactors here. Society creates nothing and does nothing, the people working together in that society do.

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

You are incorrect on the plow. The purchase was merely one stage in the acquistion of the plow. The plow had to be manufactured, the parts manufactured, the raw materials turned into parts, the ores mined and smelted to create the raw materials, payrolls had to be paid, bank accounts created and used, inspections done, transportation provided, roads built and maintained, railways built and maintained, ships built and manned, trade agreements negotiated,... The list could go on for pages to describe what had to happen before he could purchase the plow. Without the interaction and infrastructure, which is what society is ultimately, the plow would not exist to be purchased. The money used to make the purchase would not exist.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

I gave money for the computer, and gave my time to get money.

End of obligation.

Absent society, where did the computer and the money come from?

 

[dblack]

the best society is a free society

Why?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right.

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addictinvg. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society.

Then alcohol is the most dangerous drug to "society"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

I realize that you are saying that. What I am telling you is that you are NOT obligated. You pay for that already. It is a free exchange of resources – your taxes if you will – and there is no ‘obligation.’ You have made that trade and that is the end of it.

And none of that refutes the point. At every stage, there was an owner and a purchaser. One traded goods or work for another. The entire process is called ‘society’ but it has nothing to do with purchasing the plow. It was just a long series of people trading one thing or service for another. Individuals built that plow, traded for each step of that plow and got that plow to its end market. On that same token those individuals likely represented thousands of different ‘societies.’ Which one are you saying that skull is ‘obligated’ to or which one created the item? Was it the small society of the factory workers or the larger one representing the country or possibly the loosely related one of the truckers? The reality is that it was all and yet it was none. Society is just the amorphous name that we call small and large groups of interrelated individuals. Society is responsible for nothing in truth as it is the individuals themselves, working together, that creates. Society is just what we call that interaction.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

*sigh*
No, you are not ‘dependent’ on society because you use a computer. You are simply interacting with others and building on that interaction. That is not dependence; it is a mutual beneficial relationship. Dependence is a one way road. This is a two way interaction with give and take.

We look at the word "obligation" differently. If I meet my obligations that does not mean those obligations do not exist. I simply have met them. I pay my mortgage, but that does not mean my obligation to pay my mortgage goes away.

Saying it is interaction does not mean you are not dependent. Take away your access to that interaction and you will quickly see just how dependent you are. The infrastructure and interaction is society. Your entire way of life is utterly dependent upon your participation in that society. Look around yourself and ask what is it that you produce by yourself which will keep you alive. Do you grow your own food, make your own cloth, build your own shelter - all using raw materials you obtained on your own? Unlikely. Do you even have access to potable water? Most people don't. Take away society and the vast majority of us die in a matter of weeks. If that is not dependence, I have no idea what is.

"Society" didn't build my house.

 

[Oddball]

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

You really need me to define society for you? The general populace asshole. And no, the concept of freedom in general is not harmful. certain small freedoms are however.

And there you have it.

The entire premise is one massive generalization about an abstract concept.

In this instance, what constitutes "harm" is at least as fleeting as what "society" is or isn't.

It's like a doctoral thesis in navel gazing.

 

[PratchettFan]

I realize that you are saying that. What I am telling you is that you are NOT obligated. You pay for that already. It is a free exchange of resources – your taxes if you will – and there is no ‘obligation.’ You have made that trade and that is the end of it.

And none of that refutes the point. At every stage, there was an owner and a purchaser. One traded goods or work for another. The entire process is called ‘society’ but it has nothing to do with purchasing the plow. It was just a long series of people trading one thing or service for another. Individuals built that plow, traded for each step of that plow and got that plow to its end market. On that same token those individuals likely represented thousands of different ‘societies.’ Which one are you saying that skull is ‘obligated’ to or which one created the item? Was it the small society of the factory workers or the larger one representing the country or possibly the loosely related one of the truckers? The reality is that it was all and yet it was none. Society is just the amorphous name that we call small and large groups of interrelated individuals. Society is responsible for nothing in truth as it is the individuals themselves, working together, that creates. Society is just what we call that interaction.

*sigh*
No, you are not ‘dependent’ on society because you use a computer. You are simply interacting with others and building on that interaction. That is not dependence; it is a mutual beneficial relationship. Dependence is a one way road. This is a two way interaction with give and take.

We look at the word "obligation" differently. If I meet my obligations that does not mean those obligations do not exist. I simply have met them. I pay my mortgage, but that does not mean my obligation to pay my mortgage goes away.

Saying it is interaction does not mean you are not dependent. Take away your access to that interaction and you will quickly see just how dependent you are. The infrastructure and interaction is society. Your entire way of life is utterly dependent upon your participation in that society. Look around yourself and ask what is it that you produce by yourself which will keep you alive. Do you grow your own food, make your own cloth, build your own shelter - all using raw materials you obtained on your own? Unlikely. Do you even have access to potable water? Most people don't. Take away society and the vast majority of us die in a matter of weeks. If that is not dependence, I have no idea what is.

"Society" didn't build my house.

No. But it did make it possible to build your house. Did you cut down the trees and saw the lumber? Did you mine and smelt the ore and then make your own nails?

Society does not build anything. People do. Society is that infrastructure and interaction which allows you to take advantage of something someone else did on the other side of the world. If you pick up a phone and call someone hundreds of miles away, the conversation is between you and the other person. But without the phone the conversation is not possible. It is the medium which makes that conversation possible. Society is the medium which made building your home possible.

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature. It's us. It's the community, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. It's all of us living in coordination with each other. What happens in a community across the country from me affects me, because I am part of that society. I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.