Last first: what does "right by default" mean? And why am I not right by default? — tim wood
I think alcohol sits on the border. Apparently responsible use is possible for most people, but not for some people. As to illegal so-called hard drugs, it appears it's really difficult to be a "responsible" user. For that, then, control, and the recognition that use of what cannot be controlled may not be, probably cannot be, moral. — tim wood
My mistake replying to you, mere-s. You seem to take pride in being offensively useless at the expense of even the possibility of substance, a shame. But one can learn... — tim wood
What I do not like is non-responsiveness. I take this site as a place for the exchange of ideas, hopefully the lesser both appreciating and yielding to the better. But that requires participation in the exchange, in good faith and good spirit. But you: for example, I ask you what you mean by "right by default." How did you reply? You wrote, "It means right by default, and you're not right by default because that's just not how this works." A model of explication with zero substance. "By default" to me means "absent objection." It could also mean absent argument or consideration. It could mean other things as well. But you had no interest in supposing that someone who asked you for clarification might have had a reason for asking.You don't like strong criticism, do you? You take it personally, and respond with name-calling and the like. — S
"My original objection to your point about control was that it is met with the question of, "To what extent?". Whether you find my analysis offensive or otherwise, your closing point doesn't tell me anything meaningful, as in any practical guidance on the topic. Does it mean we should all stay completely sober, all of the time? What exactly does it mean? I guess we'll never really know if you won't clarify. And by clarify, I don't mean ramble on without actually addressing my objection. These are serious, unanswered questions: If I have a few pints, I will lose some control. So, should I never drink, or what? What about having a few pulls of a spliff? You need to actually break down and properly go in to detail about control. — S
What I do not like is non-responsiveness. — tim wood
Then you should be more succinct and more on point. — S
Indeed, I should take this to heart, except that you rarely (never?) answer direct questions, as, for example, those at the end of my last post to you. I am force to conclude that the topic of the thread, whatever thread you're in, is at best of tangential interest to you; that you're greater interest is personal display at the expense of both topic and substance. — tim wood
Why not start from the beginning: do you buy the notion that there is such a thing as ethics/morality? (Some folks argue the two terms mean the same thing.) Or not, meaning that any discussion of them is basically delusion, or at best error? — tim wood
I'm not going to play out a Socratic dialogue with you, and the topic is whether it is immoral to do illegal drugs. — S
I don't excuse my belligerence, I accept proportional responsibility, then I make light of it and move on, because otherwise it would eat me up inside and I would be at great risk of doing something even more self-destructive. — S
So you deny full responsibility to assuage your guilt so that you can feel better about yourself so that you can be a better person. Nice mental gymnastics. Does this method of self-affirmation work only for drug induced violent states or does it also work for intentional acts of violence? Can I shoot someone in the face and then deny full responsibility in order to unburden my conscience so that I can go out and be more productive? — Hanover
Great! The implication is that you know what morality and immorality are. Clearly one needs to know to determine the morality of taking illegal drugs. Tell us then please what you say morality is. — tim wood
I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible. — S
Alright, so let's say you got drunk and belligerent and punched a guy named Bob in the face. There are 100 percentage points of responsibility you can dole out. How many of those 100 points do you get? If not 100, who gets the rest? — Hanover
Perhaps your punishment should be lessened due to the extent of your intent, but I can't see reducing your responsibility. — Hanover
If your behavior was motivated by a high fever, it'd likely reduce or eliminate your responsibility, but I can't see voluntary intoxication as a viable defense. — Hanover
Ah but you are. Any philosopher - and any mature adult - knows that. — tim wood
I think you're talking about legal culpability - but who knows? Are you? — tim wood
I get it, I really do. Had you been remotely clear anywhere, I'd have tried to work through it. But I have not found that post or those posts. And of the things you refer to, when I research them myself, I do not find that I can connect what I find with anything you write - and you're not interested in explanations. What I do find consistently in your posts is criticism in many forms. And I thank you for that word. It seems you think this is The Criticism Forum. But your criticism is destructive, not constructive. I'm certainly due my fair share of criticism - and more! But nothing destructive. And again you ignored a direct question.I'm not going to stop criticising people for doing things like this, — S
I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible. — S
Hmm. I started with the idea of arguing this. But what's the point? And I guess I've got to acknowledge that you simply are not responsible.Ah but you are. Any philosopher - and any mature adult - knows that.
— tim wood
That's not an argument, that's just a condescending assertion, and an implicit attack on my character. — S
And again you ignored a direct question. — tim wood
But your criticism is destructive, not constructive. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.