The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I've stated many times that I don't believe homosexuality is a conscious choice, that's a stupid position, but we know that sexuality has psychological influences.

Besides, even if it was genetic that wouldn't make a difference to the debate anyway.

As soon as I saw Alt and Superbowser imply that was my position I just posted this and didn't read the rest of the convo.

Oh, wonderful, so it's not a choice, it doesn't harm anyone, AND it's morally wrong based on to your incredibly arbitrary, demonstrably fallacious moral code (100% based on the naturalistic fallacy), which actually doesn't even seem to include "being gay" in the things that it considers wrong (yeah, remember how we demonstrated that homosexuality is natural? Remember how science actually showed that homosexuality is present in other primates as a way of blowing off stress in some monkey tribes? No? read up and stop being such a moron about it!!!)! But oh well, whatever, you'll just find more post hoc justifications for your feelings towards homosexuality, that almost certainly come from your intolerant religious upbringing.

Also because you ignored it:

Also, Dre., is it possible for something that one has no control over, and something that does not commit any actual harm (beyond the naturalistic fallacy of a moral worldview you seem absolutely intent on continuing to advocate) to anyone, to be seen as morally wrong? If you honestly think so, then I have nothing more to say to you on the matter because your view of morality is ridiculously arbitrary and backwards, and not even remotely based on right or wrong in any true sense. Might as well say that it's wrong to be black; after all, even though it's outside of your control, and even though it does not harm anyone else, it's morally wrong... according to my incredibly arbitrary, demonstrably fallacious moral code, which actually doesn't even seem to include "being black" in the things that it considers wrong (yeah, remember how we demonstrated that homosexuality is natural? Remember how science actually showed that homosexuality is present in other primates as a way of blowing off stress in some monkey tribes? No? read up and stop being such a moron about it!!!)! But oh well, whatever, you'll just find more post hoc justifications for your feelings towards homosexuality, that probably come from your intolerant religious upbringing.

Dre., stop talking about homosexuality. You do not do yourself justice, and you are shown to be wrong again and again and again and just won't shut up about it.

Yes, I mad.

Also, get this. If being black is the state of existence, then guess what? Breeding while black (god forbid) is the practice.

 

[Dre89]

I know it's not your position. I also know that you imply it is your position over and over and wonder why people get mad at you.

No people assume it because they stereotype. Just like they all assumed I was religious and that my position was for religious reasons.

BPC- I'm on a train at the moment I'll answer that essay another time.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yay I'm back, finally got a new computer.

o.O

It's nice to see we're still talking about the same things 2 months later.

AltF4's graphic is gold.

The PG is like, epically busy compared to the DH. What up w/that.

 

[Lythium]

That's always the way it is, yo.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Yeah, back when I was in the PG it was much the same. Sorry for not being even remotely active guys, but I just got a bit tired of going over the same arguments (both for and against Christianity) ad nauseum. I might pop in here and there to contribute nowadays, but I probably won't be constructing walls of text like I used to.

As a side note, is it just me, or is it VERY rare for ANYONE to concede a significant point in a debate?

 

[ballin4life]

You could try posting about something that's not Christianity. Yes, we actually have threads about other topics now.

 

[Nicholas1024]

*insert incredulous denial*

Actually, the thing is, Christianity is one of the few subjects I've studied enough to debate intelligently. So although I might post in the new topics here or there, I don't know enough about them to be one of the main posters.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

>complains of going over same arguments
>starts arguments which in turn leads to those arguments
>can only debate about that stuff

 

[Aesir]

Screw the god talk.

Legalize all Drugs. Who's with me?

 

[rvkevin]

Screw the god talk.

Legalize all Drugs. Who's with me?

Affirmative.

 

[Theftz22]

Umm...sorry but that's a meaningless discussion according to my scientism. Does not compute.

 

[Aesir]

^ How so? (tencharacters)

 

[Dre89]

Umm...sorry but that's a meaningless discussion according to my scientism. Does not compute.

Lol.

It's so sad that I get that joke....

 

[rvkevin]

^ How so? (tencharacters)

It's probably because he adopts a framework of ethics that is not related to the real world so he thinks that discussing evidence withing that framework of ethics is meaningless. This has the unfortunate implication that no evidence could be presented to him to convince him that certain acts are good or bad. This means that his system of morality cannot progress and is in the same form of when it was developed. Lets hope it was developed in modern times and not the bronze age...

 

[Theftz22]

^lol what?

 

[Aesir]

I'm still not getting the joke.

 

[rvkevin]

^lol what?

Could you be more specific?

Aesir, I can't understand it either.

 

[AltF4]

Screw the god talk.

Legalize all Drugs. Who's with me?

Make a thread, man. I might argue against "harder" drugs, maybe like heroin. Just a little bit of that stuff ruins your whole life. Selling heroin could be considered predatory.

Call me old fashioned, but I think there has to be a victim in order for there to be a crime. When someone sells someone else heroin, it seems to me like there is a victim in a way that isn't the case with marijuana.

 

[Aesir]

I would even argue that heroine should be legal, I would even go as far as to say that prohibiting it makes it more dangerous than having it legal. Having it legal means it's prone to taxation and regulations. Could even go the route that New Hampshire goes with Alcohol and have the state sell it, 100% of that revenue, would go to the government, that plus cutting the money from the war on drugs and putting it into programs that work.

I should probably make a thread on this.

 

[ballin4life]

I really really hate the "it should be legal so it can be regulated and taxed" angle. How about just accepting that people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies? Government regulations and taxes are just likely to make the market more expensive and inefficient for everyone.

 

[Sucumbio]

Cause the 60's are dead. There's too many miserable people on Earth to allow free use of crack/heroine/coke. We'd go from barely making it to definitely not making it as a species. Just imagine America's worst ghetto - everywhere.

 

[ballin4life]

So you would start doing crack heroin and cocaine if they were legal? (normal cocaine isn't even THAT bad for you btw - nothing like crack).

Illegality doesn't stop anyone. All it does is make more money for drug dealers and lower the quality of the product, making it more dangerous. People die from overdoses sometimes because it is tough to know how strong a particular product is.

And who are you to tell me what to do with my body? And why not ban fast food and lasagna too while you're at it? Way more people die from obesity than from drugs.

 

[Theftz22]

Could you be more specific?

My point here was that moral obligations (statements of ought), which the debate must eventually boil down to if you're advocating that we ought change drug policy, are not attainable through science alone, so on a scientismic theory of meaning the discussion becomes meaningless.

This applies to the intellectual property thread, so I'm not sure how Alt squares his scientism with his position there.

 

[SuperBowser]

People die from overdoses sometimes because it is tough to know how strong a particular product is.

It's actually commoner than you think for heroin users to overdose at some point in their life. The most likely time an overdose occurs is following an attempt to quit; the body's tolerance goes down and people mistakenly take too much when they relapse and take it again.

 

[rvkevin]

My point here was that moral obligations (statements of ought), which the debate must eventually boil down to if you're advocating that we ought change drug policy, are not attainable through science alone, so on a scientismic theory of meaning the discussion becomes meaningless.

I never fully understood the is-ought distinction. Perhaps you could illuminate it.

Suppose that it is the case that I am thirsty. Suppose it is the case that I know that water will quench thirst. Suppose it is the case that I would prefer not being thirsty over being thirsty.

Are you saying that from these sentences, I can't get to the conclusion that I ought to drink water? Is so, what more is needed to get to that conclusion? If not, which of these sentences is not attainable through science?

 

[ballin4life]

It's pretty obviously not the case that you absolutely 100% always ought to drink water. Imagine for example that you and I are in a desert, and I have a bottle of water - the only water for miles. The only way you can get the water from me is to injure me. Is it still the case that you ought to drink water?


Also I think underdogs will say "well how do you know that you ought to satisfy your preferences?"

 

[Aesir]

I really really hate the "it should be legal so it can be regulated and taxed" angle. How about just accepting that people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies? Government regulations and taxes are just likely to make the market more expensive and inefficient for everyone.

I'm not saying it should be legal for those reason, I'm saying it should be legal because prohibition doesn't work and we're wasting money and jail space for non-violent/victimless crimes. The moment we end the drug war, the easier it will be for us and other countries. (since we're the nation that is holding everyone else up.)

It's not about accepting that people put harmful things in their body, that's fine if you want to shoot up heroine good, I'm not going to stop you. Regulations on drugs would just stop people from OD'ing on overly high concentrations. In Holland you have almost no OD's (I'm pretty sure that number is 0, but without hard data I'll stray from saying that point.)

The whole point of legalization is a shift from saying addiction is a crime to saying addiction is a medical condition (which is what it really is.)

I mean if you want an unregulated market, that's fine, I just think it's irresponsible to do that.

I think you and I agree on legalizing it, after reading the responses, just you're against any regulation and taxes so it's whatever to me. We'll never agree on economics so whatever. lol

ninja edit: I wouldn't even say we should tax it, I think it would be a lot better if we did what NH does, and just have the government sell it directly.

 

[ballin4life]

That would totally eliminate competition in that market. Why not have the government sell us TVs too? It worked pretty well for the Soviet Union, right?

Regulations aren't going to stop people from ODing ... I don't see how that would be the case at all. Please explain?

 

[Aesir]

That would totally eliminate competition in that market. Why not have the government sell us TVs too? It worked pretty well for the Soviet Union, right?

Trying to paint my position as communist is pretty smart, and by smart I mean silly. All I'm saying is I would prefer that, because then the concentration wouldn't be abnormally high like the stuff on the streets now is. Plus it would completely avoid having to tax it since the government would get 100% of the revenue.

I should also remind you that this idea comes from New Hampshire which is pretty anti-communist.

Regulations aren't going to stop people from ODing ... I don't see how that would be the case at all. Please explain?

When you're regulation you're regulation the concentration. The stuff on the street now is usually a very high concentration which typically means over doses can and will occur since it's a very hazardous amount being pumped into the body. In some Western European countries if you're an addict you go to the hospital and they give you your drug, which is regulated at a safe concentration. The result has been very few over doses because believe it or not, lower concentration means you're not going to OD.

 

[rvkevin]

It's pretty obviously not the case that you absolutely 100% always ought to drink water. Imagine for example that you and I are in a desert, and I have a bottle of water - the only water for miles. The only way you can get the water from me is to injure me. Is it still the case that you ought to drink water?

If you can't answer my questions, then you aren't helping. What more is needed to reach an ought? You seem to be implying that more "is" statements are needed, which doesn't help the original case.

Also I think underdogs will say "well how do you know that you ought to satisfy your preferences?"

This seems like a closed question to me. Can you explain further with the word ought tabooed?

 

[ballin4life]

The reason stuff is at a high concentration is because it's illegal. It's easier to smuggle something that's in high concentration (you have to move a smaller total amount of stuff).

An unregulated legal market is still very likely to be safe, because companies generally don't want to randomly kill their consumers (it makes them less money plus there is the risk of lawsuits).

It will obviously still be possible to OD by taking a large volume, but that's true regardless of regulations.

 

[AltF4]

Grr, make a thread if you want to actually debate a topic. Debating in here just makes it hard to follow (since there are multiple concurrent conversations) and hard to organize.

My point here was that moral obligations (statements of ought), which the debate must eventually boil down to if you're advocating that we ought change drug policy, are not attainable through science alone, so on a scientismic theory of meaning the discussion becomes meaningless.

This applies to the intellectual property thread, so I'm not sure how Alt squares his scientism with his position there.

"Scientism"? ...really? You just slap an "-ism" at the end of anything and make it sound scary and bad. Science is neither, that's just absurd. And that term was only used by Dre as a slander against me, not anything self described. I'm not obligated to hold to any of its connotations. He also insinuated that I perform homosexual acts on science, but I don't suppose you think I do that too?

 

[Dre89]

Your rejection of philosophy and advocacy of science makes you a scientisimist.

 

[ballin4life]

If you can't answer my questions, then you aren't helping. What more is needed to reach an ought? You seem to be implying that more "is" statements are needed, which doesn't help the original case.

But I do think that you can reach an "ought" (sort of) from is statements. I think that if an action will increase happiness for at least one person while not decreasing happiness for anyone else, then it is an action that ought to be taken.

This seems like a closed question to me. Can you explain further with the word ought tabooed?

It's initially apparent according to most theories of morality that there is a bit more to it than simply saying you ought to satisfy your preferences (at the basic level). Hence the example I gave.

You're asking what "ought" means. I'd say it's the idea that there are certain actions that are objectively correct actions to take, regardless of one's personal preferences. At least, that's the best explanation I can come up with off the top of my head. I'd say that nothing can truly reach an ought besides another ought. That's why I like to begin morality discussions by finding some common principles.

Anyway, I'd actually say it's readily apparent that humans MUST satisfy their preferences with every conscious action that they take - by definition. When one acts, he chooses, from all possible actions that he can think of, the one that he thinks will increase his happiness the most - the one in line with his preferences. Morality is just another thing that goes into those preferences, if you ask me.

 

[SuperBowser]

When you're regulation you're regulation the concentration. The stuff on the street now is usually a very high concentration which typically means over doses can and will occur since it's a very hazardous amount being pumped into the body. In some Western European countries if you're an addict you go to the hospital and they give you your drug, which is regulated at a safe concentration. The result has been very few over doses because believe it or not, lower concentration means you're not going to OD.

Should probably use sources for medical claims.

Hospitals can and dogive high doses. In fact, initially, they try to match the addicts' normal dose (though this obviously needs to be done with care). If you regularly use heroin, you will build an absurdly high tolerance and you will need an absurdly high concentration. Unless repeatedly injecting yourself per single use is considered an acceptable alternative for users (it's not). The advantage of a hospital is not the concentration; it is that you know where the drug is from, that you can safely administer it and that it keeps addicts in contact with health services.

 

[Aesir]

Should probably use sources for medical claims.

Hospitals can and dogive high doses. In fact, initially, they try to match the addicts' normal dose (though this obviously needs to be done with care). If you regularly use heroin, you will build an absurdly high tolerance and you will need an absurdly high concentration. Unless repeatedly injecting yourself per single use is considered an acceptable alternative for users (it's not). The advantage of a hospital is not the concentration; it is that you know where the drug is from, that you can safely administer it and that it keeps addicts in contact with health services.

I'm going off of memory, so that might be why. Plus no one ever reads sources so I never take the time to post them anymore.

I probably should have mentioned this before it's important to note that addicts who are out of jail have no idea what the purity level is. IE if you were incarcerated, then released and you go buy some heroine and it turns out the concentration is 3-4 times what your body was use to you're going to OD. In any case regulations do tend to make drugs more safer than their street counter parts.

But I agree I probably should have provided medical links.

The reason stuff is at a high concentration is because it's illegal. It's easier to smuggle something that's in high concentration (you have to move a smaller total amount of stuff).

That's the point because there's no over sight. If you honestly think a company wouldn't put on the market a very highly concentrated drug if they thought they could make money on it you're wrong.

An unregulated legal market is still very likely to be safe, because companies generally don't want to randomly kill their consumers (it makes them less money plus there is the risk of lawsuits).

Yeah you're right, all those deaths the Tobacco companies try to stop, has really helped us out you know?

It will obviously still be possible to OD by taking a large volume, but that's true regardless of regulations.

It'll be far less likely. Like I've said Netherlands do a pretty good job at avoiding Overdoses.

 

[SuperBowser]

I probably should have mentioned this before it's important to note that addicts who are out of jail have no idea what the purity level is. IE if you were incarcerated, then released and you go buy some heroine and it turns out the concentration is 3-4 times what your body was use to you're going to OD. In any case regulations do tend to make drugs more safer than their street counter parts.

Not sure where you read this concentration malarky but it's not a common reason for heroin overdose. A regular user has an incredibly high tolerance to heroin. After periods of abstinence the body's tolerance falls. When somebody leaves prison, they try to take the dose they used to. This is why they overdose, not because of incorrect concentrations.

Personally, I don't think heroin can even be considered "safe" for common use - I can't conceive of an appropriate method for the government to ever "sell" this drug. It is highly addictive and the lifetime risk of accidental OD in users is high. Heroin is still illegal in Netherlands and I'm not sure their health policies really mesh with what you propose. I agree with heroin-assisted treatment but this is rather different to selling.

 

[ballin4life]

I probably should have mentioned this before it's important to note that addicts who are out of jail have no idea what the purity level is. IE if you were incarcerated, then released and you go buy some heroine and it turns out the concentration is 3-4 times what your body was use to you're going to OD. In any case regulations do tend to make drugs more safer than their street counter parts.

Any form of legalization will be safer obviously - since the control will be out of the hands of criminals. It's just that regulations will make the product more expensive for businesses and consumers, and won't improve safety.

That's the point because there's no over sight. If you honestly think a company wouldn't put on the market a very highly concentrated drug if they thought they could make money on it you're wrong.

The problem isn't concentration, it's the variance in concentration. A company who puts a highly concentrated drug will label it as such - that will make them more money. And the concentration will be consistent, so users will be less likely to OD.

Yeah you're right, all those deaths the Tobacco companies try to stop, has really helped us out you know?

Read what I said again. Tobacco doesn't randomly kill you. It draws out the process over a long time, during which you are still making money for the tobacco company. If you want to ban tobacco or something then it looks like it's time to ban lasagna too.

It'll be far less likely. Like I've said Netherlands do a pretty good job at avoiding Overdoses.

Yes, I said it would be less likely.



According to what you are saying the Soviet Union should have been economically successful. If that isn't your argument, please elaborate on the difference. Why is government production of drugs a good thing, while government production of TVs is a bad thing?

 

[Sucumbio]

While I agree with Alt on the "make a topic" thing, I fully expected the comparison to Fast Food to crop up again, and as you can see in one page's replies the "drugs-legal or not" issue is played out.

If you legalize it, there are problems, just different problems than the ones we have now. It may in fact be the lesser of two evils, I can't say. It's difficult to predict the outcome when there's so many crack heads out there. What becomes of them? Instead of looting/stealing to get their next fix they get real jobs so they can buy their crack vials at Walgreens? I dunno, it just seems like a lose-lose situation.

And for the record I have no authority to dictate what anyone puts in their body save my own. However, I trust doctors, and it is almost unanimously decided in the medical community that Drugs are bad m'kay. As is cholesterol.

Besides, I see fast food being banned eventually, or drastically altered. Ronald McDonald's days are already numbered.

 

[ballin4life]

There's so many crack heads out there because drugs are illegal. One of the reasons crack is popular is that cocaine is too expensive (due to being illegal and all), so drug dealers had to find a way to make a cheap version.

Please explain what problem there is under legalization that does not exist already under criminalization.

Also Sucumbio, you know what kills many more people than illegal drugs every year? Cars. We should probably ban those too. In fact, cars are MUCH worse than illegal drugs, because a car can actually hurt OTHER PEOPLE. If I choose to use drugs and fast food, I am only hurting myself, and the tradeoff might be worth it to me. But if I choose to use a car, I increase the chances of hurting someone else, as well as myself.

The point is that I should be able to do something unhealthy if I want to. If I want to eat some Lasagna, I should be able to make that decision for myself, since it doesn't affect anyone else.