First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Leela's law
27340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15

silversongwriter wrote:


Isn't that a bad thing? It means we aren't allowed to do whatever we want to ourselves? So what our decisions are based on influences, all decisions are like that... For me, free will is only the ability to freely choose between knowledge "data", in our heads. All decisions are influenced by something.

If I sign a contract with someone and consent to letting them shoot me in the face, it should be legal. The problem is the government overstepping it's boundaries and trying to apply value to our lives.


Not a bad thing. That sort of philosophy is impossible to apply to good effect in reality. I can say everything is subjective so there should be no rules and that is of little help. We need lines often for the sake of having them to prevent wild, destructive, stupid behavior. Sort of like speed limits. If we don't have any, there would be chaos.

It's a matter of drawing a line where most reasonable people would agree it belongs. Banning something that does more harm than good without unreasonable cost sounds fine with me.
5621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


silversongwriter wrote:


Isn't that a bad thing? It means we aren't allowed to do whatever we want to ourselves? So what our decisions are based on influences, all decisions are like that... For me, free will is only the ability to freely choose between knowledge "data", in our heads. All decisions are influenced by something.

If I sign a contract with someone and consent to letting them shoot me in the face, it should be legal. The problem is the government overstepping it's boundaries and trying to apply value to our lives.


Not a bad thing. That sort of philosophy is impossible to apply to good effect in reality. I can say everything is subjective so there should be no rules and that is of little help. We need lines often for the sake of having them to prevent wild, destructive, stupid behavior. Sort of like speed limits. If we don't have any, there would be chaos.

It's a matter of drawing a line where most reasonable people would agree it belongs. Banning something that does more harm than good without unreasonable cost sounds fine with me.


So... should meth be legal or illegal?
27340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15

silversongwriter wrote:

So... should meth be legal or illegal?


Consider the cost of prohibition, the benefits and drawbacks of meth legality and use, the viability of alternatives other than prohibition, and the likelihood and scale of harm.
5621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/15

Morbidhanson wrote:


silversongwriter wrote:

So... should meth be legal or illegal?


Consider the cost of prohibition, the benefits and drawbacks of meth legality and use, the viability of alternatives other than prohibition, and the likelihood and scale of harm.


Shouldn't it just be legal for consenting adults regardless of the consequences?
27340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15

silversongwriter wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


silversongwriter wrote:

So... should meth be legal or illegal?


Consider the cost of prohibition, the benefits and drawbacks of meth legality and use, the viability of alternatives other than prohibition, and the likelihood and scale of harm.


Shouldn't it just be legal for consenting adults regardless of the consequences?


No. Consequences should always be considered. Reals over feels here. If it produces a powerful real-world consequence and the rationale is simply a philosophical one that produces no measurable positive result, I'm inclined to consider the reasoning insufficient. Oversimplification when making a big choice, in other words. Unwise.
37369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15

silversongwriter wrote:

Okay, so do you support the war on drugs then?

Drugs pose a public health problem, however, it's still a persons freedom to do them. Should meth and heroin be illegal, which they are, but is that right?


It is, in my view, acceptable for the US central government to regulate the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine and heroin given its interest in promoting public safety/health and the severe deleterious effects of these substances. Whether I think its chosen methods are effective or not, or even whether these substances should be the objects of its immediate focus, is a different (and irrelevant) discussion.

Incidentally, a strategy comparing conversion therapy's effects to the effects of methamphetamine (which can include severe itching, tooth rot, accelerated aging, and a schizophrenia-like syndrome complete with paranoia and delusions) strikes me as rather self-destructive.


Also, if conversion therapy doesn't advertise itself as a "psychiatric practice" then shouldn't that make it okay


No, because the conversion "therapists" would still be claiming that their techniques "cure" homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender identification without evidence, those techniques would still be inflicting the harm that they do, and things would still be exactly where they are now. Your proposal does nothing to substantively address the problem at all. Then again, you're not actually interested in resolving the problem, as you indicate here:


silversongwriter wrote:


Nalaniel wrote:

It has been proven that conversion therapy just messes people up, but I'm sure you don't care.


Nope, I don't. However, I do support age restrictions


Conversion therapy's deleterious effects aren't age based, so an age restriction approach is pointless even if we were to pretend you actually care about those deleterious effects (which you say right here you don't).

Now, give me a reason to keep engaging with you in light of your expressed lack of interest in your own topic.
22678 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15
So does this ban people from mutilating their organs to pretend to be the opposite sex?


dragontackle wrote:

Cant we just ban Tumblr?




If only... its more of a cesspool than 4chan and they are 99% shitposts.
668 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Greensboro North...
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15

silversongwriter wrote:


ProfessorFaust wrote:

It is no different than arresting people people for not taking their diabetic child to a doctor. Furthermore, these conversion therapists should also be prosecuted for fraud, because they make false promises to people for money.

Your religious freedom ends precisely where my religious freedom begins. Parents have a right to teach a child whatever they want, but they do not have the right to convert that child at the point of a sword.


So tarot cards and fortune tellers should be arrested since they accept money for something that's unscientific.

Also, diabetes, unlike trangenderism, can kill you. It's his fault for being weak enough to kill himself over it. The dude was weak minded. This boy was no victim of any mental disorder, he was simply unable to handle his own situation


The difference being is that tarot cards and fortune tellers aren't labeled as scientific but this type of therapy is considered a therapy when it reality it is not only ineffective but also does harm
41972 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / arid wasteland
Offline
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15

silversongwriter wrote:

So tarot cards and fortune tellers should be arrested since they accept money for something that's unscientific.


Only if they make false promises to treat medical disorders, or otherwise defraud people. So in many cases, but not all cases, yes.


silversongwriter wrote:

Also, diabetes, unlike trangenderism, can kill you. It's his fault for being weak enough to kill himself over it. The dude was weak minded. This boy was no victim of any mental disorder, he was simply unable to handle his own situation


Transgenderism does kill, the same way major depressive disorder does: through suicide.

Transgenderism is classified as a mental disorder by both the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Unless you are either a psychiatrist, researcher, or have a reputable, peer-reviewed source (e.g. a medical journal), you have no leg to stand on when claiming otherwise.

The word of a forum poster is never sufficient to establish credentials, so bring on the citations. If you can find any.
37369 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/1/15

ProfessorFaust wrote:

Transgenderism does kill, the same way major depressive disorder does: through suicide.

Transgenderism is classified as a mental disorder by both the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Unless you are either a psychiatrist, researcher, or have a reputable, peer-reviewed source (e.g. a medical journal), you have no leg to stand on when claiming otherwise.

The word of a forum poster is never sufficient to establish credentials, so bring on the citations. If you can find any.


Well...as I understand it the frequently concurrent depression and anxiety (which can be exacerbated by abuse and discrimination) contribute most to suicide risk, though that's not to downplay the severity of one's dysphoria as a potentially contributing factor. One thing I would point out, however, is that the APA distinguishes gender dysphoria and transgender identification, with the former being recognised as a disorder and the latter not.

You're basically on point, though.
5621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/15

BlueOni wrote:

It is, in my view, acceptable for the US central government to regulate the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine and heroin given its interest in promoting public safety/health and the severe deleterious effects of these substances. Whether I think its chosen methods are effective or not, or even whether these substances should be the objects of its immediate focus, is a different (and irrelevant) discussion.

Incidentally, a strategy comparing conversion therapy's effects to the effects of methamphetamine (which can include severe itching, tooth rot, accelerated aging, and a schizophrenia-like syndrome complete with paranoia and delusions) strikes me as rather self-destructive.


Self-destruction isn't bad though... Just like suicide is never wrong. They choose something, it's not up to you to get invovled.


Also, if conversion therapy doesn't advertise itself as a "psychiatric practice" then shouldn't that make it okay


No, because the conversion "therapists" would still be claiming that their techniques "cure" homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender identification without evidence, those techniques would still be inflicting the harm that they do, and things would still be exactly where they are now. Your proposal does nothing to substantively address the problem at all. Then again, you're not actually interested in resolving the problem, as you indicate here:

I'm not interested in resolving a problem, I just wanna protect peoples freedoms. And a psychic claims to see the future with no real evidence. And "Harm" is subjective. If the person recieving it doesn't feel harmed, then they're not harmed. You cannot be harmed by something unless you do not want it or agree to it.


BlueOni wrote:
Conversion therapy's deleterious effects aren't age based, so an age restriction approach is pointless even if we were to pretend you actually care about those deleterious effects (which you say right here you don't).

Now, give me a reason to keep engaging with you in light of your expressed lack of interest in your own topic.


I don't care about the negative affects, because the affects cannot be negative unless the person receiving it thinks they are. Plus, I know personally that it works

5621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/15

ProfessorFaust wrote:

Only if they make false promises to treat medical disorders, or otherwise defraud people. So in many cases, but not all cases, yes.


They claim to see the future though...


ProfessorFaust wrote:

Transgenderism does kill, the same way major depressive disorder does: through suicide.

Transgenderism is classified as a mental disorder by both the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Unless you are either a psychiatrist, researcher, or have a reputable, peer-reviewed source (e.g. a medical journal), you have no leg to stand on when claiming otherwise.

The word of a forum poster is never sufficient to establish credentials, so bring on the citations. If you can find any.


So why is it a big deal though? So what it results in them making the choice to die... It's not resulting in anything objectively negative
5621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

No. Consequences should always be considered. Reals over feels here. If it produces a powerful real-world consequence and the rationale is simply a philosophical one that produces no measurable positive result, I'm inclined to consider the reasoning insufficient. Oversimplification when making a big choice, in other words. Unwise.


But what makes the consequences bad? I believe meth users should have their children taken away... I believe they shouldn't be allowed to drive under the influence... I believe they should have to be over 18 years old... However, if they have no kids, are adults, and don't do meth in a position where it's dangerous to others, then how is it bad?
Posted 11/1/15 , edited 11/1/15
I'm a fortune teller. I foretell....that this thread will go on with everyone of varying levels of decency disagreeing with everything OP said.


Magic, aren't I? Why don't we cut to the chase and stop feeding him?
46843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Midwest
Offline
Posted 11/1/15
The problem here is your belief in religious freedom. The only freedom religious folk have is to argue for their religion. The same way I can't request a religious roommate or women only housing. If I want to practice my religion I have to own my own property and make sure I'm not upsetting anyone by existing. America has made it impossible to have any kind of freedom.

My question is though, if people truly believe one is born into sexualtiy, that it is all in the genetics, why don't they also believe that they may not want to live that way and may need something like this therapy to give them hope?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.