We just can't stay pissed off for too long.

Don't call me sir... Bitch.

We are not talking what ifs. If your not going to properly discuss the topic, best not to talk at all.

Indeed, you would not want to find yourself forcibly ejecting saliva to your cell mate in a black jail correctional facility. Only a couple of months to go, man, take it easy.

Yes, but it is an excitable kind of frustrating, like desiring to be with someone you love but you can never have. It feels good in a bad way.

Chewing gum in a professional setting. The hate I silently feel is all consuming. — Hanover

That is the same with people who chew with their mouth open for me. The hatred is so profound that even I'm like whoa take it easy girl. The moment they stop the masticating display, suddenly the dark storm of pure loathing disappears.

Philosophy — MysticMonist

Yeah, this is just awkward.

Clearly, if you are smart enough to understand what "begging the question" means, why are you begging the question with:

You appear to have a gap in your knowledge about how many people are able to use drugs beneficially and without addiction or self destruction — Jake Tarragon

The reality of this self-destruction far outweigh the benefits.

Benefits, such as cerebral, perceptual, developmental, social, hedonistic, intellectual, creative etc etc accrue to people without any particular mental health issues, as well as to some of those who do have such issues. — Jake Tarragon

As I have been saying repeatedly to you, the benefits are what compel otherwise why would anyone want to take drugs? The brain is the network that architects everything that you experience and the structural networks of neurons send signals and messages both within it and throughout the body that harmoniously organises everything that you think and feel. It is not just some random pill or smoke or injection, but the chemicals from these drugs mimic this neural network and interfere in the natural neurotransmitter messages and receptors and changes how the message is delivered (i.e. dopamine). While it can activate these "faux" transmissions (that is, unnatural) it is nothing like the brain' natural neurotransmitters and so it releases abnormal disruptions that ultimate damage how the brain communicates information.



From an evolutionary perspective, we are wired to desire pleasure and feelings of euphoria and we seek this (in our brains), thus when we active this area of the brain, it continuously motivates us to want more. While you think that this pleasure is gratifying, or as you say cerebral, perceptual, developmental, social, hedonistic, intellectual, creative, and the fact that it produces such feelings in a much more amplified manner than naturally, the reality is that any lengthy or continuous use eventually impairs how our brain functions as its natural neurotransmitters decrease by its faux replacement or the drug-induced dopamines. Overtime, when our natural processes start to dysfunction the person begins to experience a depressed state that thus enables the cycle of addiction, to keep that person going (the withdrawal). It is that one-off experience that may not effect you depending on the network or circuits in your brain as some are more prone to addiction than others, but over time the damage of natural neurotransmitters is completely disrupted.

I agree with number 4. The rest is just silly.

People who chew with their mouth open. And bad smells. And people who stare. And those people that snort back something through their nose.

But only for as long as the drug is in effect and this is what leads to addiction and the terrible results that follow. Why else would anyone be compelled to take it? If drugs enhance their lives, it overcomes the anxiety, the depression, the feelings of isolation and emptiness and keeps a person going. So, indeed, I already do realise that there are great benefits, but these benefits are faux, never long-term and leads one down to self-destruction and not self-empowerment. How do you feel about that? I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

That is just... (Y)

Such protestations indicate an unheard grievance and while it might be an intriguing phenomenon to you, his persistence identifies the clarity of this efficacy. You can examine his actions as an absurd tactic, but you are wrong with the effect it is having. All you are asking for is either silence or submission.

I see, perhaps there is no need to start another thread as it is generally relatable to this discussion. I do not endorse the use of recreational drugs, however I am not anti- in the way most think, as in I do not judge drug-users or hate or be afraid of them for doing so because there are reasons that compel people to substance abuse. I have lost friends to it, I work with young people and have seen it tear the most beautiful people apart, but more importantly they lose who the really are, that sense of self, developing a sort of apathy where they depend on the wrong people. As said by William Styron:

"I felt loss at every hand. The loss of self-esteem is a celebrated symptom, and my own sense of self had all but disappeared, along with any self-reliance. This loss can quickly degenerate into dependence, and from dependence into infantile dread. One dreads the loss of all things, all people close and dear. There is an acute fear of abandonment.”

As I said, I have never taken any drugs neither do I drink alcohol, but pressure caused me to smoke cigarettes once, which I haven't touched in a number of years. And I really cared for someone who was clearly affected by his environment and substance abuse; such a brilliant mind all but gone.

I actually agree with you on everything except for a couple of absolutist positions you seem to hold, namely that content is relevant and emotion is irrelevant, and that we are only responsible for our own emotions. — praxis

When we made emotion relevant in this thread, it only led to disarray and conflicting opinions that choked the point the initial OP was intending to make. The moment the content was objectively clarified based on the overall content, it settled into what became a guideline. Is the guideline formed to control the emotion? Perhaps. Perhaps we can congratulate emotions for enabling content to prevail, but in the end, content prevails.

About only being responsible for our own emotions, I can appreciate relativism, but I don't believe it offers a carte blanche pass. If we're not sure about someone we can be cautious until getting to know them better, if we care to. The emotional landscape is not as dark and unnavigable as you paint it. — praxis

There is nothing else you can do; you can caution someone that you don't like their approach and they may realise that and work around your feelings, but what one considers condescension another may not and I am not going to walk around egg-shells because such-and-such will find it mean or because people will consider it bad. I say what I want, within reason. And I totally get why:

Fuck you all therefore. Destruction is now necessarily what I am about. It will be my own destruction on this site no doubt, but that is no longer any great loss to me. — unenlightened

As this is a philosophy forum, can I suggest that the most fundamental discussion about recreational drugs is not the whys and wherefores of drugs that are currently out there, but the use of drugs in principle.. Could I ask whether you are against recreational drug use in principle? — Jake Tarragon

How exactly you are unable to link the 'use of drugs in principle' without ascertaining some understanding of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' is somewhat a mystery to me. What has what I believe got to do with anything? Whilst I understand that the question is as follows:

Anyway, not to feel melancholy over something so insidious and destructive, I was wondering why do some people resort to drugs to fill their time? We live in a drug culture, that's, I think, intuitively obvious. — Posty McPostface

My initial post described by example what I later stated to be caused by self-esteem issues and a sense of apathy, stress and anxiety, as well as accessibility.

I am genuinely thrilled for you to be able to say you are "content". (L) — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why?

The "reality" is that Cannabis is not always a "problem". Did you read the study I linked my last post to or were you still responding emotionally? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm not sure what part of the following you did not understand.

The problem transcends your backyard. — TimeLine

There are other issues here then medicinal cannabis and I really do not want to discuss the highly addictive chemical THC and cannabis with you. Alcohol, for instance, is appreciated socially and yet it is responsible for more harm than the deadliest of illicit drugs. Thanks for the link, I guess? I could give you this, and this or this, but then, what is the point if you are going to go back to the same 'cannabis is good for people' when I am trying to say that drugs are bad for people, for communities, for the economy both nationally and globally.

29.5 million people worldwide are addicted to illicit drugs but with no list of what drugs they are addicted to, it makes the number less relevant to your using it as support. Once again I will repeat myself that Cannabis is not a physically addictive drug. Please provide a breakdown of that statistic: of what drugs and where in the world the addiction is if you want to cite your assertions. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ok, so it appears you have some fixation with cannabis. I am interested in the effect substance abuse can have globally. So, as the World Health Organisation stated, while it can provide therapeutic relief for medicinal purposes to cancer and HIV patients, the link to youth culture enables the following that far outweighs its benefits:

Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;

Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

Chronic health effects of cannabis use:

selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;

prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;

development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;

cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;

epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;

airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;

heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;

cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;

cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.

When I say 29.5 million, I am saying, "those who engage in high risk consumption of drugs, e.g, people who inject drugs, use drugs on a daily basis and/or people diagnosed with drug use disorders based on clinical criteria contained in ICD-10 or DSM V."

Cannabis has a prevalence of 183.3 million users worldwide
Opioids (opiates and prescription opioids) of 35 million users.
Opiates has 17.7 million users.
Cocaine has 17.1 million users.
Amphetamines has 37 million users.
Ecstasy has 21.6 million users.

Globally, it is estimated that 13.1% of 12 million people who inject drugs have HIV Aids, leading to further distribution of the deadly disease particularly in the case of some developing countries. More than 50% have hepatitis that causes 220,000 of that total to die each year, while 60,000 are attributed to HIV.

Leading to 39.6% die annually due to drug-related mortality, while it is the cause of a number of health-related concerns including disease, disability, psychiatric disorder and premature death. 35% of organised crime units are for the drug-trafficking trade that is connected to other major crimes including human trafficking, people smuggling, fraud and property crime.

Here, read it yourself. I hope that helps you with whatever the reasoning is behind your request?

I personally wouldn't categorize the quote above as "sarcasm". I categorize that as condescending. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, being condescending would be saying something like don't you know how to read? since there is a reason for that response of mine to unenlightened.

The fact is that everyone here is a sensitive little flower who hates being told they are a crap poster or crap moderator, or not objective. — unenlightened

Hence the...

This is common sense and the fact that I am repeating this is disturbing to me. Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower? — TimeLine

So, what you think matters very little, my sensitive little flower. Or is that too condescending for you?

As far as your "thinking that smoking causes a temporary sense of contentment because they are unhappy or miserable" is true in some cases and maybe even prevalent in your experiences. However, I am drawing off of my own experiences and as a patient advocate, I am in the position to help registered patients find the pain relief they are seeking, I am not in the position to try to talk them out of it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

While I appreciate that you are drawing off your own experiences, at present the discussion is about what compels a person to take drugs and not about the legality or benefits of cannabis. A person without direction from a medical professional is often compelled to drug-use due to self-esteem issues and a sense of apathy, stress and anxiety, as well as accessibility. This causes greater difficulties for a person with pre-existing mental health issues, and even cannabis - particularly following long-term and frequent use - can be detrimental and lead to the development of serious psychosis and other forms of pathology. Those living with mental health issues including depression and anxiety have a higher risk of forming a dependence on substances that includes alcohol and drugs.

William Styron' book Darkness Visible is an account of the severity of depression and how after forty years of alcohol-dependence that helped alleviate his anxiety throughout that length of time, the moment he stopped drinking alcohol he declined into a severe state of depression. His substance abuse was a means to “calm the anxiety and incipient dread that I had hidden away for so long.” By facing that anxiety, he almost committed suicide and indeed the link between depression and substance abuse is clear, just as much as depression and other mental health ailments are linked with suicide. You may have a personal or direct experience with a few people seeking pain relief and that is fine, but 29.5 million people worldwide are addicted to illicit drugs, 800,000 people commit suicide each year, millions living with the pain of depression, anxiety or disassociation, not to mention the decline in health and wellbeing including the spread of diseases.

It doesn't help that more than 50% of people who begin with marijuana move on to illicit drug use and I am not sure if you have ever seen a teenager addicted to Ice or other opioids, but it is the most horrific thing to see. So when you say:

I apologize if not all of 'us' fit into the mold you have created but stick with it and see where it gets you — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It is not a mould I have set, it is a thing called reality. The problem transcends your backyard.

When you say:

People who smoke marijuana often become much more content with where they are in life. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think it is you creating this "mould". By the way, I have never taken any form of drugs including cannabis and I do not drink alcohol, but I am "content".

No! Bad Timeline! You must behave as we want you to behave. — Sapientia

How naughty of me...

Once again you appear to sacrifice content for emotional impact, in this instance by employing an obvious fallacy. — praxis

Forgive me, but I somewhat confused. I thought you were all for emotions? So, are you suggesting that you agree with me and an analysis of content rather than emotions is more valuable?

Your example of the bright but inarticulate youth is somewhat misleading in that it was about vulgar language, and not directed at an individual who might take it personally, such as a personal attack towards an individual such as yourself. I imagine you would have had the presence of mind to deal with it if he had been aggressive towards you personally. — praxis

No, you are being misleading with this red herring by diverting the attention away from the problem and I have already provided reasoning vis-a-vis what may elicit regulation or what crosses that line; if a person calls me stupid, my theories idiotic, that I am a mindless drone or however which way they express themselves, so be it, it is my responsibility to reason why they are saying it and suggest alternate routes in the discussion. If that is impossible, then I ignore and move on.

It is easy to fall into a trap that speaks of the benefits of holding transcendental values and idealist principles of decorum - just like sacrificing our privacy in the name of security - but if we set such a standard then what we are essentially doing is generalising the multivarious community that we have and creating the 'Other'. In our world it would be ideal to communicate with likeminded people in a likeminded manner, but we reduce the likelihood of experiencing the vast array of minds and normative interests that exist out there, thus stifling knowledge.

If a person incites vilification or personally threatens then it is the content that is in question and regulation there becomes a necessity. But we don't need to minimise differences; when we form this characterisation of "decorum" it enables people to form a set image where they can potentially commit vilification but with "decorum" by speaking in a very articulate and professional manner. It is content that is important. In the end, I am only responsible for my own emotions and all I need to remind myself is that relativism is the key that keeps me in check, that neither my personality nor my beliefs are perfect and so ultimately apply the Socratic the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

I'm not sure why you think I - or anyone else - watches the videos you paste everywhere, neither do I understand what merits these stupid responses from you, but all you are doing is embarrassing yourself. This is not the shoutbox, someone has created this thread for a reason.

Do you like Stoner Mom? :B Your ideal perhaps? :B — Agustino

Ever heard of trolling?

?

I don't know how you find that remotely funny.

Authority blinds its possessor, just like a snake hypnotises its prey before it eats it. — Agustino

Nicely said, in a sort of disturbing way.

Yes, as I said above, people who smoke marijuana often become much more content with where they are in life. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh, forgive me, I did not know that you somehow knew all people all over the world who smoke marijuana and thus have some transnational power that has enabled you to verify all smokers are content with where they are in life. And here I was, silly little me, thinking that smoking causes a temporary sense of contentment because they are unhappy or miserable, which therefore verifies they are in fact not content and the smoking is the tool to assist with that sense of contentment.

I don't agree with your statement "considering the drug itself is the very cause of the temporary alleviation of anxiety that enable this contentment". You are assuming that there is anxiety about not having the 'stuff' consumerism promotes such as an iPhone or a pair of Nike sneakers. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What? No, I am saying that a person who takes drugs can still be a consumerist; the world is not you or the people you know. Are you saying that drugs do not alleviate the anxiety that enables one to feel contentment? Geez, then why would people take it?

Taking drugs temporarily alleviates anxiety and gives one a sense of calm and contentment, but that is taking away the anxiety that ultimately returns and thus the cycle is that one relies on the drugs to enable a faux contentment. Consumerism offers the same.

What I am suggesting is that people who smoke marijuana, are often the same people who share a car instead of owning two, who give away more than they keep or who will cover the difference of someone who comes up short for their purchases, all which fly in the face of falling victim to an inflated level of consumerism. It would be erroneous to believe that people who smoke marijuana are any less caring just because some don't see the value in the consumerism happening around them. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This is hilarious. I really don't know how to respond to it but the justification is bordering the absurd.

some marijuana smokers are indeed tempted to be constantly upping their financial consumption, who are jumping into their leased car, heading to a 9 to 5 career, only to be standing next to a fellow college, with drink in hand at the bar by 6pm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:-|

I am not speaking about "that addict" I am speaking of some marijuana smokers. Not everyone who smokes marijuana is an "addict" (I will use your word addict and let it pass because physically you cannot become addicted to marijuana, habitual addiction yes, physical addiction no) anymore than the person who attends happy hour for alcohol, being an alcoholic. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The most powerful of addictions are the habitual, the constant need to return until you form a tolerance or a need to continue the cycle. It is the first stage of forming an addiction. The rituals of spending time getting high soon enough loses the control that one has over the drug that they become dependent on it and for those who have pre-existing or a vulnerable to mental health issues, the development of an enduring psychotic illness is of serious concern. Any denial of that and of the existing research that indicates that is disturbing.

If a non-Kevin is an individual who possesses the capacity of emotional intelligence and has the inclination to use this intelligence to consciously attempt regulating (generally stimulate or calm) the emotions of others in pursuit of a rational and perhaps mutually beneficial goal, regardless of the prevailing latitude in official rules, this individual would be behaving responsibly. Behaving responsibly in the pursuit of a rational goal may generally be characterized as mature. Given the context, it's unreasonable to imply that non-Kevins are immature. — praxis

How dare you believe that you have the capacity to regulate another person' emotions. Can you not see how elitist and arrogant that is? IF you are in possession of emotional intelligence, the ONLY person' emotions you can regulate is your own. Who are you to tell others that they should characterise a certain "responsible" character when all you appear to be expecting is everyone to be just like you?

It is easy to be emotionally intelligent in an environment where everyone is the same.

I can show, that is, you will see if you will look, that your attachment to objectivity is an emotional one, that your not giving a shit is an emotional stance... The fact is that everyone here is a sensitive little flower who hates being told they are a crap poster or crap moderator, or not objective. — unenlightened

Ok, what part of this do you not understand?

I say that moderators - indeed everyone - can be however which way they like and they are in no position to present themselves in some particular way; the only responsibility is regulating the content and not the effect a post can have on a personal and emotional level (clearly since how this emotion is assessed is ambiguous), unless it crosses the line. — TimeLine

Where exactly have I said that I believe we should somehow remove ourselves from our emotions or that objectivity lacks emotion? Indeed, on the contrary, I am saying that we are highly emotional and that is the reason why we should apply an objectivity in our attitude, but ultimately we each are different from one another, we each have different beliefs, different customs, we are of different age, different environments and that would mean that we each have very different emotions. It is like multiculturalism only we require cultural relativism for it to function adequately; we cannot have some European form of governance that holds transcendental values and minimises differences into a system of idealist power that values ambiguous principles and not normative interests.

This is common sense and the fact that I am repeating this is disturbing to me. Oh wait, is that too emotional for you, my little sensitive flower?

Indeed it is precisely because emotions are the master of rationality that it is most important to have consideration for the feelings of others and sensitivity to one's own. — unenlightened

That is what relativism offers, but how we are capable of this is dependent on the individual and again goes back to considerations of age, education level, language barriers etc &c., and I have met some highly intelligent and insightful people who lack all the expected qualities that would mark them as such.

I have met some of the most brightest kids, so profoundly intelligent but incredibly disadvantaged and so do not have access to the language - the education - they need to articulate themselves. Do we just let them fall through the cracks by cutting them off or shutting them out because they fail to reach the standards we set? A young man once said to me: "So fucking you know what, fuck, the government is fucking creating policies and shit that most fucking people prefer, but it doesn't fucking mean that these policies are good for the fucking country." I don't like swearing and hearing it can make me emotional (frustrated), but if I had no relativism I would refuse to translate that and will instead see a failure of "decorum" that overlooks the substance in the comment neither will I appreciate the mind of someone who is trying to articulate a good point in their own language or form. I should overcome the emotions wrought by these expectations of decorum (which is actually my failure) and appreciate the content and by doing so return by giving them comments that may assist them to understand how best to explain what they are trying to say. That is my responsibility and that is the best way of influencing them to learn and develop.

Where is the understanding, the "compassion" for those who fail to articulate themselves adequately because of a number of social or environmental factors? Instead, all I see is a form of elitism that demands "decorum" for the most selfish of reasons. And yet you say:

Thus decorum and sensitivity to the feelings of others is the supporter of rational discussion and objectivity, and not at all the enemy. — unenlightened

No, it is about your emotions that only you can regulate. Relativism is the best that you can offer because it is about content, not about decorum. How am I supposed to know how you feel, and if I tell myself that you might feel a certain way, all I may be doing is projecting and perhaps even ultimately restraining the liberty to say what I want to say. What one person gets offended about, another person may find normal. It is thus too ambiguous to focus on other people' emotions.

If I'm not mistaken, the topic has focused on personal responsibility and not enforcement through moderation. — praxis

A combination of the regulation of behaviour and the behaviour of regulators. There are some smug and rather hypocritical elitists that have previously made it clear that moderators should approach their position with more decorum. I say that moderators - indeed everyone - can be however which way they like and they are in no position to present themselves in some particular way; their only responsibility is regulating the content and not the effect a post can have on a personal and emotional level (clearly since how this emotion is assessed is ambiguous), unless it crosses the line. The forum rules explicate that line, so if someone states that "all women deserve to die" then that merits moderation and a warning or a ban, but if someone is saying, "that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard" then any emotional response that comes of that is no longer of concern.

I have had complaints against me from these "longstanding posters" who write with more exclamation marks and emoticons than they do with words and have no sense of humour and I get that, but to expect me to "behave" the way in which they want me to is none of their business. I just avoid them where necessary and they can do the same to me. The reality is that each and every single one of us is different because we each come from different cultures, we are different in age, education level and above all we have different beliefs; if someone is right-wing or deeply religious, and the moderators are not, the risk will be silencing their beliefs despite the fact that it might be profoundly stupid according to me.

The only "decorum" we each have a responsibility to give and is necessary is relativism, recognising these differences and being objective in our approach. I don't give a shit if you are upset because I disagree with you, for instance, or have a different belief to me; show me why I am wrong and we'll go from there. Why are you finding that so hard to understand?

The existence of this topic would seem to indicate that emotion is relevant. — praxis

Again, according to who? It is not relevant to me, so are you saying that I am irrelevant?

A true Kevin would be incapable of consciously attempting to regulate the emotions of others. For the non-Kevin's, it couldn't hurt to try. — praxis

Non-Kevins can go suck on a lolly for all I care.

People who smoke marijuana often become much more content with where they are in life and many do not feel the need to take part in the inflated consumerism, to the degree that non marijuana smokers might. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Do they? So, people who smoke marijuana don't have an iPhone or a pair of Nike sneakers, because apparently they're more content in life considering the drug itself is very cause of this temporary alleviation of anxiety that enables this contentment? Or that addict that walks around on the street, lacking hygiene and unable to take care of himself, he must be content? I am not sure if it is inflated consumerism or inflated egos here, but I would suggest a more thorough approach to the subject because I have seen quite the reverse.

Drugs tend to amplify the feeling of satisfaction; but, we all know that that is a short-lived feeling and tends to subside after the effects of the drug have worn off... People who have limited self-restraint or have a high urge to instant gratification are prone to becoming poor or engage in drug use, which is exploited to the detriment of people nowadays by consumerism. — Posty McPostface

When I was helping a young girl remove herself from a toxic environment that enabled her addiction to drugs to appear normalised, her high level of anxiety seemed to be matched with a high intelligence that she could not communicate or utilise effectively as though her ability to identify with the external world was not coherent. She was surrounded by people who were negative and intellectually beneath her capacity but at the same time she cared for them, and so it is like being caught in a bad dream and not being able to move or say anything.

She had to survive that lack of coherency to confront the reality of her situation, to survive the feelings and care she felt for the people around her but who were at the same time very bad for her that she could not understand and so her drug-use became a tool to survive that lack of control. To be conscious and fluently communicate how you feel requires a certain objectivity and that would mean to confront a separateness, a disconnection from the people in her life and that choice is far too much for some people because it clearly pronounces the reality that they are alone.

That is scary and leads to the assumption that there is only two choices and most choose the lesser of two evils; to be around such people but remain miserable. It is better than being miserable and alone. The other choice is far too confrontational as you pretty much disregard the fabric of your identity and everything you have thought was true or real; it is like dying. To recognise that you actually don't like the people you love and if you have low self-esteem, there is no chance that you would believe in yourself and believe in your capacity to find happiness away from that environment.

Erich Fromm said that the root of all our anxieties are caused by this separateness or aloneness, and the resemblance between drugs and consumerism is rooted in this very anxiety. The addiction to drugs help overcome the feelings of disconnection and because of the low self-esteem, they believe that they are unable to self-regulate their behaviour. Substance abuse is symptomatic of a type of apathy to one's own self, they shut down and just don't care because it is easier than actually feeling the anxiety (which I believe is a form of pain).

Consumerism offers another form of alleviation from this anxiety and we believe that the next purchase will make us happy when - just like drugs - we are caught in a vicious cycle where the next purchase never seems to end; drugs are helping her to survive when it is at the same time causing her destruction (of who we actually are). It is deliberate self-destruction and any justifications for it are formed by this apathy. The only way to find happiness is to leave that environment and start taking care of yourself, to basically accept the death of your former identity and begin anew.

As I was returning the company car that I have been using for work, I flicked the radio on and this played. They were one of my favourite bands in high school and I realised when I heard it again that I have ALWAYS been who I am. I am this way, I see the world differently and it has been with me since I was very young. Shit, what an epiphany.



FOOTPRINTS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

Seriously? Had I known I would not have wasted my time.

There are many methods of using fallacious and faulty reasoning to stop discourse or an argument, Benkei and whilst I applaud that you played ignoring what I said well enough - whether intentional or accidental - you are repeatedly doing this:

Here's some well intended advice from the other side of the divide: try to apply the principles of charity more — Benkei

I ask you to refrain from judging my character as you don't know me. We can talk about my actions but not this. — Benkei

Can you not see that you are asking me to apply some principles of charity, that verifies that you are judging my character, which you yourself ask me not to do?

I don't think a week can make you see what you refuse to. All I can say is, ignoratio elenchi.

I am on the phone too and have no trouble explaining myself. Do you have difficulties with technology? Does that cause you to have issues articulating your point? It's just that, when you say:

Quite obviously this is going nowhere. I ask you to refrain from judging my character as you don't know me. We can talk about my actions but not this — Benkei

I assumed that you refused to actually read what I wrote considering that what I wrote was actually in good faith and had not attempted to judge your character. You interpreted this incorrectly and yet you say:

I'm sorry to see you seem to interpret what I say in a negative light — Benkei

I have not interpreted what you say in a negative light. I am ameliorating your question by providing possibilities vis-a-vis interpretation. It appears to me that you are projecting your own "negative light" onto me and that merits the end of this conversation because clearly you are misinterpreting me.

I will apply my own beliefs that when a discussion is going no where, it ceases to exist. But I am happy to wait until you find suitable technology to assist you to write better.

Indeed, which displays a number of possible factors; the first is either I believed you intended to be condescending by implying that my vocabulary is lackluster when in fact you were merely asking a question, or you were being condescending but did so in a manner to try and escape any possible connection to this and that I was stating a fact. Just the same as ignoring what I wrote by asking have you considered it was a straightforward question? which can be considered a red herring, before, of course, quickly editing that post to add your so-called reasons to ignore the post that actually ask you questions about clarity you are refusing to give.

It leads to only one point. This discussion is over.

First, I suggest you answer my question. Why do you think that there is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra?

Have you considered it was a straightforward question? — Benkei

Yes. But clearly you have intentionally ignored everything that I wrote to try and outmaneuver the intention of my point against you, which is that you have no right to ask of others what you yourself refuse to do.

What's the title of that thread? Context matters. And in that context it fits perfectly in what I've been saying here. — Benkei

The context here is what you expect of others and how you actually apply yourself, therein the hypocrisy. If someone started a thread about suicidal thoughts before you make a joke of it, I hardly call that:

forbearance and compassion — Benkei

And I doubt Martin Luther King would either.

Or is condescension not emotion in your vocabulary? — Benkei

Well, this shows your lovely character of compassion and forbearance, right, by being condescending. No, condescension is an attitude of patronizing superiority, what you exemplify above.

In regular English "this" refers to something that came before and the word philosophy wasn't in your comment whereas the contents of the thread were. You'd expect you'd be talking about what is in this thread not "philosophy" at large. You were being unclear, in my view. I was happy to accept it was about philosophy it just didn't change much about my point. Instead I get a value laden rhetorical question back, which is once again emotional. There is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra. — Benkei

How is it that you speak of context and yet you are unable to ascertain that the discussion in this thread together with what I said vis-a-vis content - being philosophical - was not somehow the subject of concern? Ok, without being obtuse (your favourite word, right?), let me move on to the latter part and ignore the nonsense of my lack of clarity as I attempt to dissect what it is that you are attempting to convey, which is that last sentence that there is no speaking without emotion unless we're conversing in algebra.

Indeed, when I say define or explain yourself, think of it like this; what would happen if we began to regulate emotions? What would that look like? Everyone here is different; what you may find offensive, I don't at all; so what happens then? We have no right to put demands on how other people should behave, it is situational and requires situational relativism, and whilst you can and have the absolute right to profess what you feel to be an ideal mindset and attitude in approaching philosophical discourse, how this can be approached will remain ambiguous. It is the reason why you cannot clarify yourself.

Where did I speak with condescension towards you that warrants the label "little people"? I'm not in this conversation to put anyone down, I've given particular advice to Sapientia as he has repeatedly indicated he thinks form doesn't matter. I think it does and have tried to argue why and how that's a win-win for everyone involved. Did that come across as an attack in your view that we're having this conversation? If so, I think that would be for Sapientia to take up. — Benkei

If you post on a public forum, than you contractually allow other members who have signed and agreed to the regulations to respond accordingly. Are you saying that I am not allowed to contest your advice that I disagree with only because it was not directed to me? Whether you are or you are not putting people down, that is of no concern to me, but what is of concern is that you think that "form does matter" which I think disregards the liberty to be as you are and lacks cultural and situational relativism. Is that so hard to understand? Instead, I have received very little in substance or intellectual matter from you, save for that one sentence as mentioned previously.

This returns back to the underlying point about assumptions of behavioral etiquette; I have not at all been emotional or confrontational, but you took what I said personally and that is your flaw, your problem because the content of what I am saying is relevant. How you feel about that approach is of no concern to me. I never called you a dickhead or the like to become subject to criticism, I just pointed out errors in your opinion. Why is that wrong?

More generally, I think the forum could do with more forebearance and compassion as these combative attitudes make most conversations here just go round and round (talk about the futility of philosophy indeed). This one is doing towards it as well. You don't have to agree, you don't have to implement it. I personally can take whatever people throw at me so this issue isn't even about people being forebearing and compassionate to me. — Benkei

There is no "combative attitude" as that is all dependent on how people choose to react; we may have emotional attachments to our beliefs or worldviews, but it does not mean that those emotions themselves are justifiable just as much as the beliefs themselves. People can be passionate for what they believe in and we have no right to stop them from expressing themselves, however which way they may attempt to articulate it. If we were to apply your compassion, we should overlook the emotion and reach in to find the content and go from there.

Only when it crosses the line; i.e. freedom of speech vs. hate speech, that regulation becomes a necessity, comparatively when posters here start inciting terrible or extremely nonsensical suggestions that ultimately merit deletion. What I consider a joke you may consider offensive. The only thing we can do is try to understand one another as best as we can and not to suggest that either you or me or Saptientia can be "better" people, which renders back to the point of why I said "little people". To purport that "decorum" is required lacks the very relativism that I am a proponent of.

Thanks. I personally think that I am as well, and I think that Benkei must have meant something else, like being a people pleaser, although that wouldn't be true either: I can be when I want to be. That's how I earn a living. — Sapientia

I personally do not want to respond to you because I am afraid of drawing you into a possible guilt by association if everyone starts to get angry with me.

Nevertheless, for me, I have never seen you say or do anything wrong and the emotions here are the petitions made against you by persons who I feel expect everyone to behave as they would and not as everyone should, which is by being themselves still subject to forum regulations. I would not want you to be anyone else, just as much as I would not want Agustino or Hanover or everyone to be subject to apparent unwritten rules of 'decorum'. It is just so Orwellian.

There are only several things I am dedicated too; anti-racism, freedom of speech and women/children' rights. Anything that may disturb that will disturb me.