"Social Justice" vs "The Individual"?

[Fried Egg]

[Pablo]

Originally posted by extro:

---

I can't even agree with that. I see, for example, the Peyote Indians and their way of life and society, as better than that of some puritans who abstain from all intoxicants

---

My statement was that I believe a non-drug using society to be better than a drug-using society. Your statement, while true I suppose, doesn't really refute what I said. You simply manufactured an exception to my general statement. I didn't mean that all non-drug using societies are better than all using ones. It's not the only variable by which we would measure.

[Fried Egg]

Besides, it doesn't really matter what type of society Pablo would prefer, as long as he's not seeking to impose it on everyone else, where's the harm?

[Pablo]

Further, I think you are on very thin ice when you pass that kind of judgment, comparing the peyote smoking Indians to the Puritans. Who are we to judge which of those societies is healthier or happier. It's easy to pluck that kind of comparison out of the air to make a point, but how on earth do you really decide which is better? You can't.

[Samadhi]

I can.

[Pablo]

and do you use Mason Jars?

[Samadhi]

Of course I use Mason Jars for my peyote. What a silly question.

[extropalopakettle]

[Pablo]

I believe the Indians would have a healthier society without the Peyote. So what? Who cares what you and I believe about those Indians? Our opinions are irrelevant to the reality.

[extropalopakettle]

Reality? You lost me ...

[Fried Egg]

Pablo

[Bicho the Inhaler]

[Pablo]

[Fried Egg]

Pablo

[Pablo]

There are many people who can and do use drugs "responsibly" (I guess is the word) but in general, I still contend they exert a downward pressure on the fabric of a civilization. Your level of use may be manageable as you say. Or you may be in denial. Or you may have a crisis in your future. I have no way to know, but I'll take you at your word. Even if your life is totally in control, I still think you're playing with fire. I don't see you as a criminal or as an immoral person, but I do see you as a person at some risk.

[Fried Egg]

Pablo

[extropalopakettle]

[casinopete]

alright.

Clearly Samadhi is right, and I am completely unable to make myself understood, because no one bothers paying any attention to the context when they respond to my posts.

extro: the post of yours I responded to claimed that laws against recreational drug use were examples of laws whose only point was some sort of "social justice," and not meant to protect the rights of anyone. My response was not intended as an argument for such laws, and the comparison I was drawing to driving was not meant to indicate I felt the dangers were the same.

My point was only that there is some danger. It doesn't matter if a majority of people would abuse the drugs, or even if many would. The point is that some would, and that the purpose of the laws is to protect people from these individuals.

Please notice, I am not even arguing that they actually provide such protection. I am arguing, and have been arguing all along, that they are meant to do so, and are not merely the product of someone seeking "social justice."

Is my position clear now?

[extropalopakettle]

[Fried Egg]

Casinopete

quote:

---

My point was only that there is some danger. It doesn't matter if a majority of people would abuse the drugs, or even if many would. The point is that some would, and that the purpose of the laws is to protect people from these individuals.

Please notice, I am not even arguing that they actually provide such protection. I am arguing, and have been arguing all along, that they are meant to do so, and are not merely the product of someone seeking "social justice."

Is my position clear now?

---

I think it should be clear from Pablo's comments that our anti-drug laws step from more than a need to protect individuals, but from a deep seated feeling that the fabric of society itself is harmed by their general use.

If the drug laws really were about protecting individuals, they wouldn't target drug use attall. The would actually be targeting the unsociable behaviour that drug use alledgedly entails.

[This message has been edited by Fried Egg (edited 06-11-2003 11:27 AM).]

[casinopete]

[Pablo]

Originally posted by extro:

---

Does this apply to native American Indian tribes that consume peyote in rituals, in complete reverence of the experience?

---

Maybe, maybe not. There is a possibility that any drug use has an associated risk, including the one in your example, but I would never be the one to step in and say "knock it off, it's not healthy".

[Samadhi]

[Samadhi]

Pablo: Do you think aspirin, penicillin, lithium, etc ad nausem "exert a downward pressure on the fabric of a civilization"?

Or is it only drugs taken for pleasure that you feel have a negative influence?

[Pablo]

Samadhi,
Since you ask, I do believe that our society has come to be too dependent on those drugs. It's a different dynamic but with a common thread. The insidious problem with all drugs is they foster dependency. Many people take no responsibility for their own health. They believe there is a medicine that can solve any problem, and that society owes them that medicine if they need it.

OK - I don't want to be seen as a fanatic. I'm only responding to a question - I'm not on a soapbox advocating the abolition of medications. To me, there is a downside to all drugs and it's hard to generalize because some are used to do good things and some are abused.

The only "answer" I know of is to promote the idea of personal accountability so that people are responsible for whatever drug use they choose and subject to whatever consequences that brings, both in recreational and medicinal drugs.

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

....you blame us for not understanding you. Occam's Razor dood. If EVERYONE doesn't get your point, maybe YOU'RE not making it.

---

The title of the thread is "Social Justice" vs "The Individual." The article being discussed is about Social Justice vs. Individual Rights. The specific direction of the debate was regarding whether there were any laws based in Social Justice rather than as a balance, restricting some rights in favor of others. My post immediately preceding extro's expressed my doubt that any such laws, that fail to in any way protect other rights, existed. extro's post provided an example of a law he felt fit into that category.

Was it really too much for me to hope that my response would be taken in light of that? I suppose it was, since clearly legalization is something of a pet debate with you, so you pretended I began arguing "anti-drug" so you can call me a fuckwit and attack me.

[Samadhi]

Pablo: Ok, I wasn't sure if it was a puritanical attitude that was influencing you. I see it is not. It's (no offense) a health nut attitude.

I agree with it to a large extent. I see too often drugs used as an answer when they are not. Doctors prescribing medicines that are at best not needed and at worst will only exacerbate the problem. Recreational abusers (bingers) and addicts self-medicating in damaging ways.

With the way things are today, I would say it is probably likely that the net sum of direct positive and direct negative effects from drug use is negative. I believe that if responsible attitudes were fostered that could change however. And I also believe that there are some people and groups whose benefits outweigh the downfalls.

Throw in prohibition and it makes the sum effect immensely negative and very unlikely for attitudes to swing positive. But then we all seem to be in agreement on that.

[Samadhi]

CP:

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Argumentum ad hominen.

---

At no point have you done otherwise toward me. With what should I be answering your insults?

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Also a lie. You pissed me off on Page 1. Go ahead; open Page 1, hit ctrl-F and look for the word "Drug". You won't find it.

---

Whether or not it's on page 1 is irrelevant.

What might be relevant is that you'd stopped posting for three days, but as soon as drugs came up, or rather, as soon as someone you hadn't debated legalization with (me) said something you could assume meant I was anti-legalization, how long did it take you to jump back in?

The pointless sarcastic comment took about an hour. Jumping fully back into the conversation took. . . 11 hours? less than 10 depending on how you count. and though I have no clue what your schedule is, I'd guess that included some sort of sleeping period. No, not rabid at all.

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

The issue here is that your arguments are poorly clarified. When people raise questions or make statements against them you CONSISTENTLY say "I didn't say that."

---

Except to clarify, it is you who (claim to) make statements against them, and it has been to you I've responded, "I didn't say that." You're thinking, "but you just said it to extro!" But look at extro's post following mine. He did not turn it into a drug debate; he continued arguing the topic. His continuation of the drugs example was that it didn't protect any rights... why, that sounds topical! And he brought up another example, too - quite clearly not steering the debate into legalization. Why then, did my clarification post address extro? For specifically that reason. He was the only one who seemed interested in debating the original topic rather than spinning off into legalization.

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

I quoted you (Post 30) to support my statement you accused me of failing to answer anything you say (despite the fact that you asked nothing), that I should have gleaned your intent from the surrounding jumble of paragraphs (and ignored the statements implying governments grant and decide rights)

---

ahem.

Originally posted by Samadhi, in POST 30, "quoting" casinopete:

---

To correct your example: If the government claimed it was an inalienable right

---

Originally posted by casinopete, in the post from which Samadhi claimed to be quoting:

---

Instead, what I claimed was that a government that guarantees the security of a right, must also guarantee that it be possible to fulfill that right.

To correct your example: If the government claimed it was an inalienable right to be able to learn astrophysics, and that it was going to secure that right, it must also ensure that the means of my learning physics must be available. Otherwise, I will not be able to learn astrophysics, and thus, my right was not secured.

---

The surrounding paragraphs are not jumbled, and there is no need to ignore the line you quoted, because it does not mean that the government is declaring rights. More sensible to assume is that the people are declaring the rights, and the government is agreeing that it needs to secure those rights. Use your precious Razor here, Samadhi. Which is the more obvious thing to assume, that I mean what I'm saying in the post as a whole, which is that the government is declaring that it's securing rights? Or that I've decided to scrap the argument in favor of stating that it is the government that decides which rights are important? Think, Samadhi. Seriously. You didn't answer what I was saying. You pulled a sentence out of my post so you could ridicule it. You were not interested in the debate at all.

[This message has been edited by casinopete (edited 06-12-2003 10:11 AM).]

[Samadhi]

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

And, of course, you followed that "fuck you" by stating that you never said what I was saying you said.

---

I never said what you were saying I said. Should I perhaps have claimed I was? Lied just to make sure you were not wrong?

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Bullshit. You set the tone you pompous schmuck. My first comment to you was some questions.

---

And your questions were meaningless because they had nothing to do with what I was saying. Reread your reply 20, where you quoted me then responded with gibberish. And further, don't even begin telling me those were honest questions, you fucking hypocrite. You implied "What an incredibly stupid thing to say, casinopete" before I did likewise for you.

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

I chose to ignore the condescention however. I even decided to graciously accept your clarification. My next statement
(Post 25), while containing profanity, could not be considered ad hominen (do you know what that means?)

---

Originally posted by Samadhi, in his "gracious" reply #25:

---

Furthermore, you still need to shift your paradigm. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DECLARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. THE PEOPLE DO. The government does not mete out rights. Got it?

---

umm. yeah. First you claim you know my opinions, and that they're wrong, in all caps so I "realize" what a fuckwit I've been to be arguing with Samadhi. And the little "got it?" on the end - you think that's gracious (do you know what that means?) I fail to see how you could possibly consider this anything other than a personal attack - it sure as fuck had nothing to do with the arguement.

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Right after you said my name shit for brains. Have I argued drugs with you? NO. You said my name and like Candyman, I'm here. You are so completely wrong it is pathetic.

---

Umm. Bullshit. You were out of the debate. I was talking with extro. He replied to me, and you jumped in saying exactly the same thing he did. You sure as hell weren't arguing with him. Who, then, must you have been talking to?

I don't particularly care if you decide to shun me, but perhaps before you make even more of a total fuckwit of yourself you should go back and look at your posts, and be the teenyest bit honest with yourself about what a fucking asshole you have been this entire thread.

[casinopete]

[pause in the argument]
By the way, when I said I was stunned, I really was. I couldn't at all tell how you'd arrived at the conclusion that I was equating possibilities and rights.
[/pause in the argument]

[The Anonymous Sacrast]

I think you're both right.

[Samadhi]

You'd be the expert.

[The Anonymous Sacrast]

Not really. I just act like one.

[extropalopakettle]

People arguing. What's up with that?

[Samadhi]

You want some?

[extropalopakettle]

Me? I never touch the stuff.

[Samadhi]

Doh! Always two moves ahead....

[Fried Egg]

Casinopete