the founding fathers would laugh their asses off at that supposition
the founding fathers had some notion of the common good and contributing to it
meanwhile libertarianism guts the concept of the common good and declares selfishness supreme, to the ruin of all
were libertarianism the driving philosophy during the usa's drive for independence, it would have lost the revolution and have remained a british colony. there would be no common cause, only selfish isolated individuals looking after their own. libertarians have a fantasy that everyone would recognize the threat and band together in unison to defend everyone. libertarians have a funny way of thinking that by promoting selfishness as the supreme ideal, that somehow anyone anywhere would somehow sacrifice anything for a greater cause for any reason. utterly moronic
you want to make sure that when they get their names in the news, it is for reasons other than stupid stunts
this stunt doesn't do anything for the libertarian party, and in fact harms it. when the libertarian party gets in the news, it should be for issues that paint the party in a positive attractive light. if this is the best the libertarian party can do, all that we complain about the republicans and democrats doesn't look so bad after all
but libertarianism is an empty, flawed ideology anyways, so what do you expect?
i know michael bay is trying to get some good pr for transformers 2 next year, but there was no need to a stage a mock decepticon attack on a real human technological installation
why couldn't you leave the transformer devastation on the movie screen mr. bay? do you really think this will make people want to watch your movie?
therefore, methamphetamine should be thought of the same way as water!
zzz
pure stupidity
"Stop bandying about the alteration of brain chemistry like you're afraid of somebody contaminating or stealing your precious bodily fluids. LIFE alters brain chemistry. And I note in your sig something about a horror movie? Guess what. Horror movies are a drug -- they alter brain chemistry! That's why people like them! YOU FUCKING DIRTY ADDICT YOU!"
this is like considering a rocket launcher the same as a slingshot, because they both shoot things
my god are you dense
imagine a continuum, from water, to sugar, to caffeine, to methamphetamine
you can't imagine any difference within that continuum, or perhaps a cut off point in what should be allowed/ not allowed?
imagine a continuum running from water to sugar to caffeine to methamphetamine
sonmewhere within that continuum you begin to develop legal restrictions on what is ok to use and what is not
i mean we can argue about gun control law too. but if i say i am for gun control laws, that doesn't mean i want to control your thoughts as well. likewise, if i am against gun control laws, that also doesn't mean i want everyone to have free access to plutonium
see how complicated that is cretin? arguing about moderate limits has nothing to do with extreme examples of harmlessness or harmfulness
i lost to a chick who was performing live open heart surgery on rats
i didn't feel inadequate: my parents weren't high ranking research scientists who could get the authorization to let their children have the run of the university research facilities on weekends
and who i knows how much else her parents guided her through
its far more impressive to build an aerodynamic soap box derby car out of balsa wood than it is to turn the ignition on your dad's cessna
well, in terms of personal achievement that is
i'm not saying i'd rather play with balsa wood than a cessna;-)
and in return i will concede that there are plenty of propagandizers and propaganda victims who do in fact commit straw man fallacies heinously and maliciously or out of mind-washed blindness
but if they are mind-washed, your efforts are fruitless and you are wasting your time. better to say nothing and leave than say "strawman"
and if they are mind-washers, it is more useful to respond with something more than "strawman": actually illustrate the strawman misrepresentation they are making, and turn the propagandizer's mistruths against them
"We're discussing the article at hand which simply throws out the "abuse" line when in all likelihood they mean that more of them smoke a bit of pot."
okaaaaaaaaaay
so using the concept of video game "abuse" is just shorthand for accusing someone of being a pothead
**boom**
dude, can i have some of what you are smoking?...and, yes right now i am accusing you of smoking pot!
because i can't imagine anything other than inebriation which would so firmly establish in your mind the connection beween the supposed issue of videogame "abuse" and "reefer madness"
actually, if you had said the crusade against supposed video game "abuse" is something like the hysteria on display in "reefer madness", i would agree with you
but no. you want to say that someone who is worried about supposed video game "abuse" is also implicitly accusing supposed videogame "abusers" of also being potheads
person A assumes the scope of the issue at hand is narrow person B assumes the scope is broad person A makes a conjecture person B refutes that conjecture, alluding to other concepts in play person A yells "strawman" because he sees concepts being discussed outside of the assumed scope his comments were made in
plenty of times, both person A and person B have failed, because they didn't agree on the scope of the discussion at hand beforehand
however, plenty of subject matter are irreducibly complex. such that it is natural and superior to assume a broader scope. it is also more intellectually cautious and prudent to consider a broader scope, to look for more potential pitfalls in your thinking
such that the person assuming a tiny narrow scope is in fact committing a logical failure by not properly recognizing that complexity. and then they shout "strawman" because the scope is broader than they assume
no, wrong
someone who limits their scope of argument severely, in a subject matter that can be nothing but broad and complex, is demonstrating a fragility and dimness of mind, by not recognizing that the scope is wider than they see it to be. so in the illustration above, person A is especially heinous in topics that are incredibly broad and complex, where you HAVE to comment broadly to say anything of value
we both agree that one commits the strawman fallacy by going above and beyond the scope of someone's initial comments. but sometimes you HAVE to go into a wide scope of commentary to say anything of any interest or value, depending on the complexity of the subject matter
and then when you are faced with someone who shouts "strawman!" in return, you can do nothing but let your jaw fly open in dismay at the simpleton dancing before you, smugly convinced they have captured you in a logical error, when it is they who don't even properly understand the broadness and complexity of the issue they are involving themselves in
people who shout "strawman" a lot are, in short, nothing but dolts and cretins, because they assert painfully limited and simplistic limitations on their thoughts, and protest at any attempt at broadening the issue, as it most often needs to be broadened, to say anything valid
all i am saying is that you overly focus on societal values, when their influence is at best esoteric and minimal
societal values exert a force in this world, absolutely
but habituation and addiction are unrelated phenomena
so, when you want to get to the bottom of the motivations behind excessive drug use/ video game playing, you examine the phenomena of habituation and addiction
focusing on societal values in this context, meanwhile, is like a random tangential obscure footnote
Fred observes some kids playing with fireworks. The fireworks set fire to some dry grass, and the fire begins to grow towards some parkland. Fred goes over to the kids and admonishes them, telling them they are wrong for playing with fireworks when it is not New Years or the Fourth of July, then Fred storms off.
What is the point of this analogy?
The children violated social norms, BUT ITS NOT THE POINT, NOR AN EVEN VAGUELY IMPORTANT ISSUE
and yet you continue to conflate counterculture and drug use in your thinking
why?
my advice to you is to stop, think, and understand that one is an entirely different subject matter than the other
because comments of yours like "I'm saying that by taking illegal drugs a person does not fall in line with the particular subset of prevalent societal rules values concerned with use of illegal substances" is 100% accurate
people hurl "strawman" all the time when you are trying to establish an analogy or broaden the discussion. as if it is actually supposed to mean anything, as if it is a valid retort. saying "i don't wish to broaden the subject matter, i wish to focus on this narrow topic" or "i think your analogy is flawed and here's why..." are, meanwhile, valid and useful replies. parroting "strawman!" meanwhile means absolutely nothing
dear logic 101 flunkies:
we, here at slashdot and elsewhere on the wider web, are not very impressed when you puff out your chest and say:
1. "correlation is not causation" 2. "you can't prove a negative" 3. "that's a strawman argument"
we understand what these concepts mean. we understood those concepts long before we formulated the words you are responding to. the 3 statements above in no way dispel the points we made. you haven't in any way formulated a valid reply when you say one of these 3 things. at the very best, you've made a smarmy, thoughtless, smug, self-satisfied kneejerk effort that does not, in fact, say anything valuable whatsoever
please next, time, try to put a little intellectual effort in your reply, or don't bother replying at all. uttering one of the 3 phrases above simply prove you are intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest
playing videogames, cracking your knuckles, smoking marijuana, hiring prostitutes to defecate on your feet: all harmless
occasionally, it is harmful. with something like heroin, or methamphetamine, or cocaine, it is clearly harmful, for strictly medical reasons, not because of retarded social conservative values
furthermore, you are flat out wrong above: no one smokes nicotine once a day because they clearly enjoy it. they do it because they are biochemically addicted
therefore, according to your logic on drugs, this makes people abuse children
uh... dude, you fail at logic here, hard
"I'm not trying to paint some sort of counterculture mystique here, just say it is possible to use some of these things without being or becoming an addict or an "abuser", and that if you do you probably don't fully buy into the values of the society you find yourself in as you are going directly against them."
this is two competely UNRELATED issues
1. addiction: marijuana should be legal. it isn't addictive, biochemically. end of story. but the legality of every drug should be considered on a case-by-case basis. something like heroin or methamphetamine: taking these drugs and not becoming an addict is like speeding 100 mph on the highway and not getting in an accident. theoretically possible, but just a matter of time until you are an addict. its biochemistry at work here, nothing about counterculture at all. the legal status of every drug must be considered separately, according to pharamacological fact. marijuana, according to pharmacological fact, clearly needs to be legalized. something like methamphetamine, meanwhile, examining nothing but pharmacological fact, should be completely illegal
2. countercultural values: HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BIOCHEMISTRY OF ADDICTION. completely unrelated issue. stop trying to mix these issues together, you are simply failing hard
when you ignore your critics, they tend to fade away
but when you attack your critics, you stimulate neutral party's interests in the issue under contention, and often times, if you are on the right side of history, summon new support for the good cause
keep up the good fight ray. consider the RIAA suing you a gift: you yourself are now fodder for newsworthiness
for actually spelling out why you think correlation is not causation, rather than simply smugly and smarmily vomiting "correlation is not causation" without any thought and thinking that is sufficient
where all drugs were 100% legal, including meth, heroin, cocaine, etc., the use of these substances would still be seen as a mental health issue
because it is not mentally normal to need a foreign substance to support your brain chemistry
it may be harmless, yes, but look at any cigarette smoker and you pretty much have a compelling picture of the parasitism that is substance addiction
anyone who doesn't NEED drugs understands what i am talking about
and if you say you don't NEED a certain drug, and are right now formulating a rationalization against these words of mine, then congratulations: you are probably an addict. an addict needs a hard, reactive wall of rationalization to convince themselves to constantly need a foregin substance for their brain chemistry
in fact your words above "an indicator that the person has little regard for this area of law, and may be disconnected from society/not buy into its values" screams rationalization
using drugs has absolutely nothing to do with being countercultural. there are many people who buy all of a society's questionable values who become addicts (rush limbaugh) and there are plenty of counterculture icons who don't use drugs at all
or, put another way, when it comes to being counterculture and using drugs, correlation is not causation;-)
has become a self-reflexive meme, especially on slashdot, used without thought
well guess what: finding a correlation is the first step in establishing causation, and it is entirely logical to conjecture a causative arrangement once a correlative conneciton has been established
so in the future, i would suggest that you, and anyone else reading this comment who loves vomiting "correlation is not causation" as a substitute for actual thought, to spell out exactly why you think there is no causative arrangement here, or in any other discussion
because i, and many others i think here on slashdot and elsewhere are pretty sick of the smarmy "correlation is not causation" kneejerk response
its nothing more than intellectual laziness at best, but most usually intellectual dishonesty
Slashdot Mirror
the founding fathers would laugh their asses off at that supposition
the founding fathers had some notion of the common good and contributing to it
meanwhile libertarianism guts the concept of the common good and declares selfishness supreme, to the ruin of all
were libertarianism the driving philosophy during the usa's drive for independence, it would have lost the revolution and have remained a british colony. there would be no common cause, only selfish isolated individuals looking after their own. libertarians have a fantasy that everyone would recognize the threat and band together in unison to defend everyone. libertarians have a funny way of thinking that by promoting selfishness as the supreme ideal, that somehow anyone anywhere would somehow sacrifice anything for a greater cause for any reason. utterly moronic
you want to make sure that when they get their names in the news, it is for reasons other than stupid stunts
this stunt doesn't do anything for the libertarian party, and in fact harms it. when the libertarian party gets in the news, it should be for issues that paint the party in a positive attractive light. if this is the best the libertarian party can do, all that we complain about the republicans and democrats doesn't look so bad after all
but libertarianism is an empty, flawed ideology anyways, so what do you expect?
i know michael bay is trying to get some good pr for transformers 2 next year, but there was no need to a stage a mock decepticon attack on a real human technological installation
why couldn't you leave the transformer devastation on the movie screen mr. bay? do you really think this will make people want to watch your movie?
the nation goes hysterical over bisphenol a
kind of answers the question, doesn't it?
and each must be considered separately
to consider meth the same as coffee is just as stupid as considering alcohol magically good and pot magically bad
methamphetamine is a drug
well, water is a drug too
therefore, methamphetamine should be thought of the same way as water!
zzz
pure stupidity
"Stop bandying about the alteration of brain chemistry like you're afraid of somebody contaminating or stealing your precious bodily fluids. LIFE alters brain chemistry.
And I note in your sig something about a horror movie? Guess what. Horror movies are a drug -- they alter brain chemistry! That's why people like them! YOU FUCKING DIRTY ADDICT YOU!"
this is like considering a rocket launcher the same as a slingshot, because they both shoot things
my god are you dense
imagine a continuum, from water, to sugar, to caffeine, to methamphetamine
you can't imagine any difference within that continuum, or perhaps a cut off point in what should be allowed/ not allowed?
imagine a continuum running from water to sugar to caffeine to methamphetamine
sonmewhere within that continuum you begin to develop legal restrictions on what is ok to use and what is not
i mean we can argue about gun control law too. but if i say i am for gun control laws, that doesn't mean i want to control your thoughts as well. likewise, if i am against gun control laws, that also doesn't mean i want everyone to have free access to plutonium
see how complicated that is cretin? arguing about moderate limits has nothing to do with extreme examples of harmlessness or harmfulness
kuro5hit diss!
KEKEKEKEKEKEKE
i lost to a chick who was performing live open heart surgery on rats
i didn't feel inadequate: my parents weren't high ranking research scientists who could get the authorization to let their children have the run of the university research facilities on weekends
and who i knows how much else her parents guided her through
its far more impressive to build an aerodynamic soap box derby car out of balsa wood than it is to turn the ignition on your dad's cessna
well, in terms of personal achievement that is
i'm not saying i'd rather play with balsa wood than a cessna ;-)
correlation is not causation
(sorry, i'm aiming for humor now ;-)
and in return i will concede that there are plenty of propagandizers and propaganda victims who do in fact commit straw man fallacies heinously and maliciously or out of mind-washed blindness
but if they are mind-washed, your efforts are fruitless and you are wasting your time. better to say nothing and leave than say "strawman"
and if they are mind-washers, it is more useful to respond with something more than "strawman": actually illustrate the strawman misrepresentation they are making, and turn the propagandizer's mistruths against them
"Furthermore...
OMG! Zerg Rush! KEKEKEKEKEKEKE"
apologies, i had to bring the discussion down to my iq level at his age
you just made my mind asplode
"We're discussing the article at hand which simply throws out the "abuse" line when in all likelihood they mean that more of them smoke a bit of pot."
okaaaaaaaaaay
so using the concept of video game "abuse" is just shorthand for accusing someone of being a pothead
**boom**
dude, can i have some of what you are smoking? ...and, yes right now i am accusing you of smoking pot!
because i can't imagine anything other than inebriation which would so firmly establish in your mind the connection beween the supposed issue of videogame "abuse" and "reefer madness"
actually, if you had said the crusade against supposed video game "abuse" is something like the hysteria on display in "reefer madness", i would agree with you
but no. you want to say that someone who is worried about supposed video game "abuse" is also implicitly accusing supposed videogame "abusers" of also being potheads
huh?
the issue is scope of argument. an illustration:
person A assumes the scope of the issue at hand is narrow
person B assumes the scope is broad
person A makes a conjecture
person B refutes that conjecture, alluding to other concepts in play
person A yells "strawman" because he sees concepts being discussed outside of the assumed scope his comments were made in
plenty of times, both person A and person B have failed, because they didn't agree on the scope of the discussion at hand beforehand
however, plenty of subject matter are irreducibly complex. such that it is natural and superior to assume a broader scope. it is also more intellectually cautious and prudent to consider a broader scope, to look for more potential pitfalls in your thinking
such that the person assuming a tiny narrow scope is in fact committing a logical failure by not properly recognizing that complexity. and then they shout "strawman" because the scope is broader than they assume
no, wrong
someone who limits their scope of argument severely, in a subject matter that can be nothing but broad and complex, is demonstrating a fragility and dimness of mind, by not recognizing that the scope is wider than they see it to be. so in the illustration above, person A is especially heinous in topics that are incredibly broad and complex, where you HAVE to comment broadly to say anything of value
we both agree that one commits the strawman fallacy by going above and beyond the scope of someone's initial comments. but sometimes you HAVE to go into a wide scope of commentary to say anything of any interest or value, depending on the complexity of the subject matter
and then when you are faced with someone who shouts "strawman!" in return, you can do nothing but let your jaw fly open in dismay at the simpleton dancing before you, smugly convinced they have captured you in a logical error, when it is they who don't even properly understand the broadness and complexity of the issue they are involving themselves in
people who shout "strawman" a lot are, in short, nothing but dolts and cretins, because they assert painfully limited and simplistic limitations on their thoughts, and protest at any attempt at broadening the issue, as it most often needs to be broadened, to say anything valid
all i am saying is that you overly focus on societal values, when their influence is at best esoteric and minimal
societal values exert a force in this world, absolutely
but habituation and addiction are unrelated phenomena
so, when you want to get to the bottom of the motivations behind excessive drug use/ video game playing, you examine the phenomena of habituation and addiction
focusing on societal values in this context, meanwhile, is like a random tangential obscure footnote
its like you are highjacking the subject matter
so: absolute, 100% agreement with everything you said above
with the caveat that your observations about social values and drug use/ videogame playing are completely trivial and pointless!
Fred observes some kids playing with fireworks. The fireworks set fire to some dry grass, and the fire begins to grow towards some parkland. Fred goes over to the kids and admonishes them, telling them they are wrong for playing with fireworks when it is not New Years or the Fourth of July, then Fred storms off.
What is the point of this analogy?
The children violated social norms, BUT ITS NOT THE POINT, NOR AN EVEN VAGUELY IMPORTANT ISSUE
and yet you continue to conflate counterculture and drug use in your thinking
why?
my advice to you is to stop, think, and understand that one is an entirely different subject matter than the other
because comments of yours like "I'm saying that by taking illegal drugs a person does not fall in line with the particular subset of prevalent societal rules values concerned with use of illegal substances" is 100% accurate
but COMPLETELY POINTLESS
"that's a strawman argument"
(smack's forehead)
people hurl "strawman" all the time when you are trying to establish an analogy or broaden the discussion. as if it is actually supposed to mean anything, as if it is a valid retort. saying "i don't wish to broaden the subject matter, i wish to focus on this narrow topic" or "i think your analogy is flawed and here's why..." are, meanwhile, valid and useful replies. parroting "strawman!" meanwhile means absolutely nothing
dear logic 101 flunkies:
we, here at slashdot and elsewhere on the wider web, are not very impressed when you puff out your chest and say:
1. "correlation is not causation"
2. "you can't prove a negative"
3. "that's a strawman argument"
we understand what these concepts mean. we understood those concepts long before we formulated the words you are responding to. the 3 statements above in no way dispel the points we made. you haven't in any way formulated a valid reply when you say one of these 3 things. at the very best, you've made a smarmy, thoughtless, smug, self-satisfied kneejerk effort that does not, in fact, say anything valuable whatsoever
please next, time, try to put a little intellectual effort in your reply, or don't bother replying at all. uttering one of the 3 phrases above simply prove you are intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest
playing videogames, cracking your knuckles, smoking marijuana, hiring prostitutes to defecate on your feet: all harmless
occasionally, it is harmful. with something like heroin, or methamphetamine, or cocaine, it is clearly harmful, for strictly medical reasons, not because of retarded social conservative values
furthermore, you are flat out wrong above: no one smokes nicotine once a day because they clearly enjoy it. they do it because they are biochemically addicted
society takes a firm stance against child abuse
therefore, according to your logic on drugs, this makes people abuse children
uh... dude, you fail at logic here, hard
"I'm not trying to paint some sort of counterculture mystique here, just say it is possible to use some of these things without being or becoming an addict or an "abuser", and that if you do you probably don't fully buy into the values of the society you find yourself in as you are going directly against them."
this is two competely UNRELATED issues
1. addiction: marijuana should be legal. it isn't addictive, biochemically. end of story. but the legality of every drug should be considered on a case-by-case basis. something like heroin or methamphetamine: taking these drugs and not becoming an addict is like speeding 100 mph on the highway and not getting in an accident. theoretically possible, but just a matter of time until you are an addict. its biochemistry at work here, nothing about counterculture at all. the legal status of every drug must be considered separately, according to pharamacological fact. marijuana, according to pharmacological fact, clearly needs to be legalized. something like methamphetamine, meanwhile, examining nothing but pharmacological fact, should be completely illegal
2. countercultural values: HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BIOCHEMISTRY OF ADDICTION. completely unrelated issue. stop trying to mix these issues together, you are simply failing hard
milk it for all its worth
this is called free public relations
when you ignore your critics, they tend to fade away
but when you attack your critics, you stimulate neutral party's interests in the issue under contention, and often times, if you are on the right side of history, summon new support for the good cause
keep up the good fight ray. consider the RIAA suing you a gift: you yourself are now fodder for newsworthiness
thank you RIAA, you fucking morons
for actually spelling out why you think correlation is not causation, rather than simply smugly and smarmily vomiting "correlation is not causation" without any thought and thinking that is sufficient
you are an intellectually honest person
where all drugs were 100% legal, including meth, heroin, cocaine, etc., the use of these substances would still be seen as a mental health issue
because it is not mentally normal to need a foreign substance to support your brain chemistry
it may be harmless, yes, but look at any cigarette smoker and you pretty much have a compelling picture of the parasitism that is substance addiction
anyone who doesn't NEED drugs understands what i am talking about
and if you say you don't NEED a certain drug, and are right now formulating a rationalization against these words of mine, then congratulations: you are probably an addict. an addict needs a hard, reactive wall of rationalization to convince themselves to constantly need a foregin substance for their brain chemistry
in fact your words above "an indicator that the person has little regard for this area of law, and may be disconnected from society/not buy into its values" screams rationalization
using drugs has absolutely nothing to do with being countercultural. there are many people who buy all of a society's questionable values who become addicts (rush limbaugh) and there are plenty of counterculture icons who don't use drugs at all
or, put another way, when it comes to being counterculture and using drugs, correlation is not causation ;-)
has become a self-reflexive meme, especially on slashdot, used without thought
well guess what: finding a correlation is the first step in establishing causation, and it is entirely logical to conjecture a causative arrangement once a correlative conneciton has been established
so in the future, i would suggest that you, and anyone else reading this comment who loves vomiting "correlation is not causation" as a substitute for actual thought, to spell out exactly why you think there is no causative arrangement here, or in any other discussion
because i, and many others i think here on slashdot and elsewhere are pretty sick of the smarmy "correlation is not causation" kneejerk response
its nothing more than intellectual laziness at best, but most usually intellectual dishonesty
responding to my posts has become an addictive personality disorder marker for him