If we could sleep twenty-four hours a day, we would soon return to the primordial slime, the beatitude of that perfect torpor before Genesis-the dream of every consciousness sick of itself. — E.M. Cioran, Trouble with being born

This sounds similar to viewing consciousness and existence much like the Buddhist concept of dukkha, the clinging of impermanent states of happiness being ultimately unsatisfactory and something one should strive to release themselves from.

Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh. — E.M. Cioran, Trouble with being born

I am pessimistic, I don't think I can say that I'm in complete agreement with everything Pessimism school of thought proposes.

I guess true Pessimists view sadness as a sort of ever present gravity, while happiness in contrast is the work against being weighed down by this gravity.

Pessimism more seems like an attitude to me. Not everyone is able to be happy, but are all certainly eligible to have tragedy hurl them in the rabbit hole of perpetual unhappiness, or to in effect take away the full potency of the happiness once derived from fulfilment.

Anyway, I wouldn’t class being sexually attracted to someone in their late teens as a sign of potential pedophilia. Prepubescent, THAT is!

I wouldn’t mix those two up. Either way if the attraction is there I’d certainly look for other paths in life to follow as you say. Sex is just sex. It is more important to some than others and this can be conditioned to a degree. — I like sushi

My internal attraction is odd. Looking past the age, I realize it's more about the perversion of a dynamic -- a father and son. My dad didn't stick around, that could be a factor, but, so haven't many other men's fathers. I do notice similar unhealthy coping mechanisms by many men whom feel their household was atypical, and develop a devoid feeling. Some becoming serial cheaters, others non-stop sex addicts, S&M, etc. I don't believe that if I am a pedophile, it's for the sake of being a pedophile. There's something internal there that I have to question and discover for myself.

i suppose i often dont have too much to say
— Frotunes

Then don't. — SophistiCat

I second this.

dude. we all belong in the vat (maybe we are? lol)
but seriously you seem to have a healthy respect for your own feelings and when acting on your own urges would cross the legal boundary, so as long as you aren't beating yourself up over being human which is self destructive, or doing harm to others, I'd say you are just fine. — MacGuffin

I'm not being self destructive and not doing harm to others. Thanks for making me feel less lonely in the vat, MacGuffin. I can now watch my legal porn with taboo themes without a care in the world again. :razz:

Then there are the "absolute" goods. These I call "absolute" as they are enjoyed universally, and simply intrinsically seem to make people happy. These are 1) physical pleasure 2) aesthetic pleasure (including humor, art, philosophizing, books, etc.), 3) feelings of accomplishment 4) relationships (being with a significant other, friends, family) 5) learning (obtaining information about subjects one wants to know) 6) Flow-states (being "in the zone" in some activity that matches one's interests and abilities) 7) Fulfilling an idealized role (good parent, good worker, good friend, good government official, etc.).

However, for each of these absolute goods, there is always some deficit of not obtaining or having to even get any one of them in the first place. 1) Physical pleasures often lead to wanting more, better, pleasures (hedonic treadmill). Also, they can be addictive or used as a crutch to avoid other realities. 2) aesthetic pleasure often requires more effort. It is not readily available like physical pleasure is, and is harder to maintain or perceive at times. 3) accomplishment obviously comes with its opposite of missing the goal, failing, not achieving one's ends, contingent circumstances getting in the way, and then one has to overcome the feelings of disappointment or frustration. 4) Relationships obviously can lead to strife, drama, and hurt feelings. 5) learning can lead to learning painful things, can often come at a cost of much exhausting work, there can be the fear of losing knowledge, of others knowing more, of having an unbalanced learning of one form of minutia. 6) Flow-states are good but hard to achieve, can lead to disappointment when one gets out of a flow-state and much of life just isn't in a flow-state anyways (other than maybe from the ideas of gurus trying to sell this idea), 7) Role fulfillment can lead to being less aware of one's freedom to not have to fill a role, one can often disappoint and not live up to a goal, etc. — schopenhauer1

Well, sure (I read all the other points you point out btw). I still don't think Pessimism (nor existentialism) is universal enough to be applicable this way. People overcome sadness all the time, unless it's just a sham and their refusal to express their unhappiness is assuaged by distractions in which there are lapses of not unhappiness, but that are otherwise a fabrication of hollow happiness. I also never believe a sense of purpose necessarily (not even often) entails happiness, only meaningfulness that might happen to bring either happiness or sadness.

Schopenhauer's characterization of human life can be distilled into a doctrine of deprivationalism as it pertains to human needs and wants. Roughly, deprivationalism is the idea that humans are always at a deficit. When born they are always running a debt by way of "dealing with" or "overcoming". — schopenhauer1

But not all Humans translate this universal need into how they philosophize the world. I guess my take on Pessimism isn't so encompassing. It seems to me many people are good at dodging the consequences of Pessimism if this dynamic is held. In your view, only more unfortunate individuals become attuned to this characterization?

The question is how you follow your own rules. I imagine some part of you is looking for an excuse to act as you please and another part of you is bravely here to discourage those very thoughts ... we all have to deal with this kind of inner conflict to some degree. Talking about it helps for sure, but at the end of the day you know when you cross the line - even if you often wish to deny it. — I like sushi

Honestly, I just don't like it being held against me as if it means some part of me is looking for an excuse to act as I please (not using a play on words to throw your point back in your face btw, just trying to effectively convey where I'm coming from here). That's why I don't try to challenge the law by giving into an urge I've never fulfilled in reality anyhow. At the same time, if someone confronted me face to face and point blank asked me if I was a pedophile or had pedophilic ideations, I don't want to feel like a liar all because of how people will take it. I'm not running toward that but I won't run away from it either. That would make me feel like a fraud, and multiply my feelings of hidden shame.

Otherwise, my life doesn't need to be all about that, but if it comes up, I won't play the deny deny game with people, because that's exactly the kind of thing they would want all along in asking me that question anyway.

The phrase "perception is reality" seems so spot on in context to this.

To be deny the pessimism, or to be "optimistic" one has to be in habits and routines that will keep the darkness out...until some event forces its way in. — schopenhauer1

I feel that like optimism, pessimism isn't something people can just give into. I haven't looked into E.M. Cioran's Pessimistic philosophy (other than the Google search I made of him a few hours ago), but, I am very well acquainted with the authentic pessimism that's been in my own life. I'm not talking a "boo-hoo" slandering of everything considered ideal or standard out of some disallowed denial -- for most people whom do this, these are temporary rants of resentment anyhow. I mean a sustained, persisting feeling of accumulative deepening sadness that envelopes your thoughts and alters your senses. Pessimism gives you the sense that it's something that has chosen you -- like you've mentioned, by some event that forces it's way in.

I believe this is also the case for intense Optimism. It "chooses" it's vessels. I don't mean this in any supernatural way btw, more that I know when I say something poetically pessimistic and someone is able to channel and in turn state something which shares an affinity to what I've said -- as opposed to looking at me like I have three heads and bluntly blurting out "Deriving happiness from sadness is an oxy-moron, moron. Makes no sense" -- then, I know they are attuned to this kind of relentless pessimism, as must be the case for Optimists.

Do you see it that way too, that Pessimism isn't so much applicable to everyone but that it is a dynamic that is pertinant and significant?

...life-affirming joy of pessimism is something we should all share in with a wry backward smile. It's the optimists who will kill you with their obvious lies, or you yourself if you cleave yourself to/with their words. Better to be at the bottom of the sea and realize you have gills than on a cruise ship heading for an ice-berg. — Baden

I've felt this way before, like having a macabre romance with pessimism. I've tried to turn from it, but I find nothing is candid and sincere than the intricacy of my own melancholy. Trying to futilly think otherwise has caused me pain and disappointment. There's a seemingly contradictory contentment in submerging oneself into their unhappiness.

"One does not inhabit a country; one inhabits a language. That is our country, our fatherland - and no other." -- E.M. Cioran

I find this to be profound, a in plain sight kind of truth. Language dictates what we talk about and how we talk about it. If I were to learn an old tribal language, I might find that 40% of the terminology is related to weather, war or Gods. A language is very telling of it's natives -- it's speakers.

One cannot take back the very thing causing the anguish, and extinguishing the self would take away the very thing that would get the relief. It is a paralysis of action, the resignation that once one is here, one is stuck with existence, that it is futile to try any action. — schopenhauer1

I resonate with this. The reason one can feel existential is because there was a point in which we saw/were/were told/experienced something elusive and cherishable... something that in whatever recourse is snuffed from us or is made tantalizing. That cruelty restructures our existence irrevocably. If we had died a few seconds before, we would've been spared that painful adulteration of loss or corruption.

This brought a subversive sense of joy to Cioran. — schopenhauer1

I'm glad I expressed something that is a testament to Cioran (I meant to state).

“It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.”
― Emil Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born — schopenhauer1

This makes me think of my childhood (that time in my existence features the most genuinely happy moments I've experienced, which is saying something, since in general, my childhood wasn't that great, but my adolescence and adulthood have been worse without at least affording me the rare moment of escaped bliss). To me, this quote speaks of the time we all wonder if we'll ever know happiness before reaching the point where you wonder if you'll ever find it in yourself to even be hopeful enough to feel like before.

In my case, I think having died of my appendicitis at seven would have been a beautiful, fitting end to my life. Sure, I would've just been a random child who died, but my life ending now means I would be a great resource sapping, tumor of a failure who finally died.

The former would have been more dignified and kind.

You have to have already experienced/done/noticed in yourself the cruelty that makes going on even more torturous. That's why it's too late to kill yourself -- dying before would have already spared you that realization.

Sigh, maybe I shouldn't discuss it here. I'm glad I finally found a place to question my sexuality in a philosophical way. Looking at my posts in general, it's apparent I'm pretty distressed. I don't know If there's a way to archive this thread, but there's no need to keep it going with me. I seem too fixated on the matter, even merging myself self-centeredly in other posts.

...there's a distinction between those who have sex with teenagers and those who have sex with under 12's. It's not only a legal distinction, it's a social distinction among prisoners — yupamiralda

...I want family, and I want kids, and none of that is going to happen if I'm locked up for kiddy porn or consensual sex with a teenager. Sex isn't everything, and you'll probably figure that out when your testosterone starts fading. — yupamiralda

It's not just a social distinction amongst prisoners. As you said, you're "hot", thus, don't give off "creep" vibes. All of this is an exception of subjective conditions (Which you are on the fortunate end of), but, it shouldn't be up to the standards of "Oh, that guy. Just look at him. He makes over 50,000 a year, has a washboard chest and has a likable personality. He can have any woman/girl he wants, so, if he's seen strolling through the neighborhood with a teenager, we won't get worked up or have cause for seeing their association as suspect because worse case scenario, it's consensual and only wrong due to technicality." Don't get me wrong, in a way I'm vicariously happy for you, but my point is, not all of us are extended this consideration. If it were something like I come off as a thief, shady character or even some heartless psychopath, the misconception wouldn't be so bothersome when I go to stores, hop on buses, etc. But I can be doing something as unconnected and self-involved as looking over some onions at the grocery store, and If some kid happens to pass by and pause in my general vicinity for whatever reason, their parents freak out, like it's something I did wrong. On top of that, when you're as antisocial as me (in my case, stoic, disinterested and aloof, not disruptive, domineering nor bellicose) people always give into speculation. I understand why (I do this too, natural for the imagination to try to provide some hypothetical answer for what we don't know and are curious to have insight on), yet, it does take a toll on me, being homeless. I don't think about it all the time, and like you, I'm nonexclusive (I'd say 80% of my sexual are out of this realm; of the 20%, 15% of even that is self fantasizing of my own childhood self. In all cases, the act is always a consensual one). I guess I've just been acutely bothered by it lately.

On the other hand, you're gay, so you'd be dogmeat. Worth keeping in mind if you want to act out your fantasies. — yupamiralda

A method of intimidation by whatever is never a good reason -- and in the long run, ultimately ineffective -- way to discourage a natural inclination. The reason I don't seek out my rumination is because (to get very specific here), I'm not attracted to minors so much as being attracted to the idea of being a minor again (in turn, being attracted to men between their mid thirties to late fifties, suggesting a pedophilic idealism, but not necessarily a predatory mode of behavior) to feel comfortable with my sexuality, as opposed to you, who may be attracted to a younger-than-18-year-old teen because she's fresh faced, tight skinned, of a small body frame, and has a much greater potential to be less jaded and cynical than other legally dateable chicks.

My problem is more like GID, except with my age, not gender. Lots of disphoria and body dysmorphia.

Maybe you should just shut up, and like, not draw attention to yourself. — yupamiralda

The point of discussing this on PF is because this is an open-minded place to have this discussion. How else am I supposed to try to understand what I'm going through and find others whom may shed some profound insight? I don't discuss this openly, publically irl. That would leave me susceptible to all sorts of retaliations instead of understanding and knowing that this doesn't make me a monster. This is a safe space, so, I open up.

The way you take something, such as a cookie, is with your arm/hand. But how do you actually do this if taking is something your arm and hand do? Doesn't that imply that really all you can take is your arm/hand? — Terrapin Station

This reminds me of the phrase "wet water." Almost like saying "All you can make wet is water (which discounts that all you can't make wet is water, because water is what makes wetness, and so, cannot in and of itself be made wet, nor wetter).

So, I see the point. Perceiving perception is redundant to consider. Any perception (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, space [proprioception]) is meant to orient us with objectivity (the latter, proprioception, helps us sense all or part of our anatomy in relation to everything else, and even to distinct parts of our own anatomy in relation to those respective structures, i.e. enabling someone to bring their fingertip to their nose even with their eyes shut.)

That doesn't mean that the end product we percive is completely free of objectivity, only that the objectivity is incomplete because our tools to percive it are limited. Our subjective predispositions add on to the misconstruction.

And personally, I do think that people whom come forward with their screw up should be assessed differently from people who are only identified as screwing up because they were caught. Very telling of a difference of conscience, from where I'm standing.

Oh, it's a messy story. I thought it was okay to mess around with someone who was dozing off (as you might be right now while reading this :joke: ) all because I had done so consensually in the past with someone else and well, kind of thought it was a thing some guys did (I'm gay btw). So, I guess I'm a sexual assailant and would-be rapist now, idk.

On an unrelated note, I am effected by thoughts of pedophilia (always consensual in my ponderings, usually of my past child self with an adult man, bizzarely enough, there have been exceptions though). What I plan to do? Keep these musings in my warped head, but not condition to deprive myself of them because I don't find the concept to be immoral and am not breaking the law while doing so. Is that vat piping-hot yet? :yikes:

Not only guiltless sentencing, but on the contrary, just-deserts reveling sentencing. You are right, not different from the world we live in today at all.

My only citation is that I feel kind of lonely in the vat and wonder how other wrongdoers found a way to do what they've done, yet, not end up down here with me. Guess I was just doomed from the get-go. :razz:

I guess I should be boiled in a vat then. I am who I am. Guess my discipline isn't sufficient to excuse my nature.

It was an open-ended question, lol (nice touch of humor).

I don't believe we need free will, what we really seem to need is a way to justify restraint or consequence for individuals when their actions or risk are a danger to the rest of us. — MacGuffin

Should the "risk" be assessed by mis-actions, nature, maybe even both, would you say?

Hyper-hypocrisy more like. A naive sort of "morality" (I get a foul taste in my mouth even calling it that). Where "anti-racists" make every possible effort to emphasize race. Where the "tolerant" accept no other outlook on life but their own. Where people will rise up against "fake news", but have no issue in copying and parroting whatever their own preferred news outlet has to say. Where people will protest for the environment yet still enjoy every luxury they can get their fatty hands on. And this is only the realm of public discourse. Don't get me started on what debauchery these persons get up to in their private lives, whilst still preaching their gospel to the masses. An age of intellectual midgets, for which I have no good words to spare. — Tzeentch

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

Well, after you've received the blow job and you are still in bed with the guy, claiming attempted rape is not convincing. He might have found getting fucked just then an imposition or an inconvenience, but rape... no. Just my opinion. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I'm to the point where I now abstain. I haven't had sex since Christmas day (random hookup; hopefully he doesn't insinuate I raped him too, seems to be a popular thing gay guys in my area now like to do with me, along with making me "gotten" with the finger circle game and pejoratively shouting "OLD." at me. :brow: :roll: ). All I'm trying to do is feel less like a schizophrenic when I interact with gay guys, I end up feeling more like a joke. Seems like gay guys my age are incapable of behaving otherwise decent and kind. It's all about shade and clapbacks. I'm more attracted toward masculine to gender neutral guys, there's nothing about acting this statically full of themselves that even encourages me to put up with the obnoxious antics and inflated airs.

Thankfully, that's no longer a problem for me. Even when I have the dreadful misfortune of encountering gay guys and gay adjacent jerks and have little in the choice of being made to put up with their behavior, at least I don't feel like a fool for putting myself out there to them, because I no longer am. It's ten times more painful psychologically when I do that. Nothing I can do about being amongst them while shopping for my necessities though.

To add, I am also attracted to gay guys who are self-possessed and who have the increasingly difficult to find gift of minding their own business being second nature to them. (Being no indirect or passive-aggressive reference to your interaction with me in threads btw, Bitter Crank).

Next time, wake him up first.

I've found that sex is usually better if ones partner is awake and involved. — Bitter Crank

My ex used to wake me up with his... introduction, we'll say, some nights. I didn't find it creepy or rapey at all. Actually, found it to be hot.

Guess when I was messing around with this douchebag, I was feeling nostalgic and since he had held my head down without asking me beforehand while his fireworks went off (it didn't bother me, also found it hot, so, I don't consider what he did as rape, unlike the consideration he offered me), I thought that was the mode of our interaction that night. Apparently, I was very mistaken.

I'm not in favor of anyone having to advertise/"register" criminal backgrounds or inclinations period.

if someone is too dangerous to be around everyday Joes they need to be in a separated population. Otherwise we need to not handicap them with any sort of stigma. This includes former felons. They shouldn't have to disclose that fact when trying to obtain work, for example. — Terrapin Station

Right. Atm, these populations are all thrown in together -- irregardless of the nature of their offenses or their level of hostility -- separated into prisons. Do you personally agree with how this populace is managed? I'd be interested in your take on this.

As for me, a few cases of heresy has surrounded me in the last two years, but, I'm not intent on violating others' rights. That's always where I draw the line. If the guy I messed around with wants to spread the word that I'm a potential rapist because I tried to penetrate him when he started dozing of, so be it. I wasn't trying to though, I know my intention was simply to have sex, figured it was consensual, apparently not. Either that, or he himself is being quite libel in regretting any sexual interaction with me after the fact and throwing that wrench in in events that happened, which is a pretty duplicitous and damn evil thing to do if you ask me. Anyway, if we're going by the "it only takes once"rule here, I'm already technically a rapist for forcing falacio on my own boyfriend one night. In all of this, I've maintained my candid attitude and duplicity. Of course, that's not good enough for many.

As for what you mention about records on former felons, I agree. Once they've met their penalty, holding it over them for the rest of their lives, effectively thwarting their chances to be eligible for opportunities based on their talents and durability, is cruel, and unusual punishment.

Sexual relations between adults and youth--heterosexual and homosexual--have occurred regularly in many societies. A lot of people don't distinguish between "pedophilia" (attraction to pre-pubescent children) and "hebephilia" (attraction to pubescent children), or even post-pubescent minors. It wasn't only the Greeks who regularly had relationships between male youth and male adults. — Bitter Crank

This can be deemed as a rationalization by many, it also factual and gives insight of a Human biological tendency (especially male) that transcends culture... a documentable pattern.

There are many reasons why I may've turned out this way. But, this tendency is a biological phenomenon in our species. It would be inaccurate to reduce it to one thing or the other, misleadingly stereotype the individuals known to experience it in some far placed, kicked box, and dismiss it as such. To me, there's something deeper here, very psychologically subconcious, and from individual to individual, varied in cause. But like you've stated, it's doubtful anyone would want to explore why neutrally. Too much ethos almost always clouds a nonhostile dialogue concerning "why?" from happening.

In my case, I believe there's more to why individuals would personally hold it against me. I could be found to be unideal, dislikable, "boring," tragically and comically hideous, grotesque, etc. It's far too convienent to make me the most pathetic of the pathetic pedos -- making me a mascot, I believe is the case for those whom are motivated to try to bring me down, grabbing the address of my tastes as their way to do so without seeming ignorant or cruel.

It seems to me that the laws regarding sexual crime and punishment have over-reached and their application is overly punitive. But then, we have quite a few laws that over-reach and are too punitive. Felonies relating to drug use being a good example. — Bitter Crank

I agree. My personal proclivity to what is considered by mainstream standards at this time to range from sexual deviance to heinous predation isn't the only one that is prone to being met with steep stipulation.

I think it was actually Terrapin Station whom pointed out in another thread (Is it Immoral to do Illegal Drugs?) that the rationalization which excuses the illegality of what is subjectively considered self-destructive drug use -- yet smoking and drinking, two intakes that also take their toll on the Human body and rob it's users of years, optimal health and money -- if we're going to equivocally look at this issue on the grounds of drug law rational many hold and apply it indiscriminately across the table. Proponents of current substance legality are complacent in exceptionalizing smoking and drinking, the rationalization here being that users of tobacco -- and especially alcohol -- aren't overall majority wise as susceptible to abusive use, and that even when they happen to be, it's a fraction of the percentage in comparison to the overall users of "hard" drugs, that the severity of the consequential effects for tobacco and alcohol use are much milder and less destructive to others by proxy (children, spouse, extended family, friends) as well.

I don't think this is fair though, it's quite selective.



Terrapin, you also underscored in the morality in the illegal use of drugs that the dangers encouraging even tobacco and alcohol regulation -- like drunk driving and no smoking areas -- is also a bit discriminatory when consider the scope of everything recreationally dangerous out there that can be risky hobbies, yet are left unopposed, maybe like skydiving, flamethrowing, super eating (like pie eating contests; sounds amusing, but hey, it can definitely get to a point of being life threatening).

It seems this post answers Maria's post, "Should some questions in philosophy remain unanswered?"

...And, to add, that morality is always "right" by nature, that there can be two moralities (two "rights") that seem to contradict but that impression would perhaps just be subjectively superficial? Or is that formulation also self-contradictory, maybe even nonsensical? — THX1138

Moreover on this, it can even be argued in your way of thinking that even if something considered moral that happens to result from an action not executed with moral intention (like infidelity from someone in an arranged marriage that produces genuine romantic love) should still be subject to penalty due to the nature in which it was done.

I should have worded the formulation differently.

A something not immoral (or moral, irrelevant of morality, in other words) when said something happens to be illegal.

But, seems that in your mindset, legal concerns are all founded on moral building blocks. No absence of morality in legality.

...And, to add, that morality is always "right" by nature, that there can be two moralities (two "rights") that seem to contradict but that impression would perhaps just be subjectively superficial? Or is that formulation also self-contradictory, maybe even nonsensical?

...there can exist a morality in breaking, and presumably a greater morality in breaking than not breaking, does not make the immorality of breaking disappear. — tim wood

Ahh, so on your basis, either way, the law always involves morality.

Otherwise, your formulation of not immoral because illegal seems self-contradictory. — tim wood

Based on your intertwining of morality and legality, it seems it would be self-contradictory.

...and, immoral because illegal. — tim wood

And, in this case, you personally find the above applies to drug use. Is it accurate to infer that?

Can you give me an example of what it wouldn't apply to referring to an example that can presently be found here in the US [A not immoral because illegal] ?

From our friends online:
"If you confuse A with B, it means you don't know the difference between them, or you think they're the same thing. Conflate, on the other hand, doesn't mean what one might expect. If you conflate A with B, it means you combine them and come up with something that's related to both, but different from either." — tim wood

As opposed to asserting that A and B are one and the same and no different, that then it's contrarily the very designation of differentiating a concept into A and B that is the fallacy.

Isn't that what you're proposing, that differentiating A (immorality) from B (illegality) is a fallacy?

It seems like there's maybe not a clear idea (in general, based on other posts from other people, too) of the difference between consensual and nonconsensual activities? — Terrapin Station

I've had some unfortunate life experiences on this matter. Accused of all sorts of things I didn't intentionally go into thinking to myself "this is non-consensual and I'm aware of this in my going through with [variable]" as being a violation against consent.

So to answer the focus of the thread IMO, no, I don't think it's immoral to do illegal drugs.

It wasn't even immoral to drink in a speakeasy during prohibition, just happened to be illegal.

The issue, though, is why should other people be able to legally prohibit you from choosing to take those risks? Why would you want to give other people that sort of dominion over your life? — Terrapin Station

Well, not for the most part. I'd probably be okay with other people taking these risks (if they prefer), if I didn't have to when seeking out the same drug.I just Ser some regulatory enactments as good when people want to be risky even to the point of risking the wellbeing of others in the crossfire (like smoking in establishments and imposing second hand smoke on everyone in your proximity, drunk driving, etc.)

Last thing I want to do is give other people entitled dominion over my life though. That would be quintessentially "wrong" (immoral).

Maybe not so much difficult as risky. Anyway, I'll probably take that risk again someday. Maybe it's just my paranoia, just always feel like a guy would if he's about to have unprotected sex with someone who gets around when I have an opportunity to partake in these kinds of drugs (which fortunately isn't often).

Sigh, I wish I had better insight about what you are going through to be of support. I guess there's nothing I can do to be of some comfort to you man.

Yep, pretty much, if you can keep it your business! If you cannot, then the claim itself is pretty foolish, yes? — tim wood

Everyone chooses what part of their lives to share. I never reveal my full hand of cards. What I share on here I'd never share irl. Last thing I need is someone with some personal vendetta against certain aspects about myself going for me out irl when I don't go on that way. All the people I've significantly wronged -- which I can count with my ten fingers (without needing to use them all) -- I've reached out to and without being made to have to, acknowledged my wrongdoings and asked for their forgiveness. I'm fortunate that they were all kind and sincere enough to help me not hate myself for what I've put them through. No lynchmob, no getting-back-at-him antics, no mind games. I doubt I can ever get close to the kind of individual who'd resort to doing that to someone and considering it a rightful duty anyway.

All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way.
— tim wood

There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. The moral problem would be prohibiting people from doing things that are risky, that can threaten their own health, even their own life.

And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control.
— tim wood

Implied . . .via people who want to control others making it up? — Terrapin Station

Although I do believe there should be some reasonable regulation or protocol to avoid living in a world like The Purge, I side with you on with the "My business is my business" approach (considering I'm a Schizophrenic with this exact acute concern).

The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind.
— THX1138

What do you believe it's at all difficult to be informed about here?
— Terrapin Station

To me, it wouldn't be like ordering the wrong part to your car because of going by your mechanic friend's advice or getting the wrong diaper size for your kid. A mistake in drug usage isn't always that reversible, and has the very real possibility of being fatal. Maybe Wayne's confidence in his drug related skills are off, but it's his friend -- who just wants to get high and not die -- who could end up dying.

I dunno, that's just me. I have tried out cocaine once and crystal meth about five times. I don't have friends with drug know how, these were just other guys I met up for random hook ups and coke or meth was offered. Honestly, I would've felt more confident if I had gotten high on these in a place like a hookah bar.

I also liken it to surgery. You want someone who knows what the heck they are doing when you are getting something that sensitive done.

I guess if the law didn't need to weigh in on restricting who can do these things, I'd hope it would at least allow for the option of finding people verified to have experience and skill for peace of mind.

Still, I'd find it wrong if it wasn't more of a given (for my and others' benefit, we don't all have it -- connections -- like that, and can get duped with fake merchandise or another drug that isn't at all what was requested), which is why I apply morality when considering this not being the standard.

I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.

That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law. — tim wood

That's some sense of entitlement there if your generalization here is sufficient to allow "right thinking members in the community" (as you've so coined) to compromise other members within the community's individual rights automatically at the very whiff of daned "immorality."

I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't. — tim wood

Things aren't always what they seem though. Ever hear of role play? What if (hypothetical, not really wondering in the case of the couple you're actually referring to) they were role playing and didn't want to break scene because of your interruption? Anyway, the thing to do would be call the police -- this is the authority in whose jurisdiction this ball falls in the court of, not you. Not to make the woman being beat a statistic overall, but, in these cases, it's often probable shes had numerous opportunities to take off on this guy yet doesn't really put herself in a position to where she reasonably rids herself of her supposed stalking, abusive husband (subconcious role play that convienently releases her of having responsibility of her "abuse," how convienent for her, must be fun feeling like Helen of Troy with everyone having to rescue the helpless damsel irl).

Just want to make it clear that this man is still an abuser, but if his wife developed Stockholm syndrome -- like many women in these situations do -- then she isn't entirely helpless, she is enabling this pattern. Call the police for the beating, call a psychologist for her mental health. Any woman in her right state of mind would find a way to break out of this otherwise.

Why isn't calling the police on active crimes a viable option? Citizens are taxed for them to civilly serve and interfere in these instances.