Am I the only one here who can't help but feel like humanity is retarded when some of its heroes include Bill Hicks and Richard Dawkins?
Bill Hicks is a genius, Tool once said that Bill Hicks said "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is, ok? Keep that in mind at all times, thank you."
that's deep
I don't actually have that much of a problem with Bill Hicks, at least not nearly as much as I do with Richard Dawkins, but his argumentation for drug abuse is just absolutely ridiculous, including what you posted (can't tell if you're being serious or not).
People go to ridiculous lengths when it comes to talking about freedom. I've noticed that society seems far more concerned with what individuals should "be allowed to do" and practically not at all with what individuals SHOULD do and how they SHOULD behave. The worst part is that when you exercise your freedom to criticize other people's behavior or even just suggest them a change in their life, they call you out and ostracize you for compromising their "freedom".
Yes, technically you have the freedom to use drugs, to be racist or even to kill yourself, but in no way does that mean you should, and even less, have the retarded extremist version of the "live and let live" philosophy everyone is so hard-pressed on following and allowing others to behave in stupid ways because "they have the right to".
(01-31-2014, 02:32 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ](can't tell if you're being serious or not).
I thought the part where I said that Tool once said that Bill Hicks said was hinting towards a joke. It's silly to quote someone quoting someone else.
ok, lol, I wasn't sure because 1) internet makes sarcasm difficult to detect, and 2) you like Tool, which also contributes to said difficulty.
(also I'm not sure if I should of put this in the ranting thread because this is partly just me venting off my old cynicism)
(01-31-2014, 02:32 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, technically you have the freedom to use drugs, to be racist or even to kill yourself, but in no way does that mean you should, and even less, have the retarded extremist version of the "live and let live" philosophy everyone is so hard-pressed on following and allowing others to behave in stupid ways because "they have the right to".
Problem is, if we allowed the government to determine whether people had those rights, then we have a huge case of paternalism. That said, from a moral standpoint, people should do things that are healthy (including not committing suicide), non-racist, etc.
To be honest, and this is the cynical/extremist side of me talking, I often think humanity is too dumb to go on without having someone holding its hand. For example, I am absolutely in no way, shape or form an anarchist, at least from a practical standpoint. I do however, believe that once humanity is ready, it will, by itself and in due time, instill an anarchist state, not because any other state is bad, but because society won't need to have its hand held anymore. Although any other form of government could work at this point, we'd have no need for presidents, ministers, diplomats, and others.
Now that's the extremist, Big Brother side of my point of view. My down-to-Earth point of view still believes that we don't have much of a choice but let people be, to a certain extent. This creates a problem, however, because we HAVE to put our foot down, otherwise we reach anomie. Telling people what to do and stepping up against their lifestyle choices is the reason we have laws and heck, even societal taboos and ethical values. People seem to forget that "live and let live" practically means that if your neighbor wants to sacrifice your firstborn child to Pazuzu, you have no right to tell him otherwise. But then of course that comes with the contradiction that the child has the right to live. In a less extreme example, a person has the "right" to smoke tobacco indoors, just like his roommate has the right to health. I can only assume bringing up this argument to a person who lives by the radical variation of "live and let live"will result in a non-argumentative "seriously, dude?", or "it's not the same".
Although I do know why tobacco is still legal (it's an enormous industry which is good for the economy, for starters), in no way am I happy that it is, and I sincerely hope one day it will be made illegal. From a "principle" point of view, people shouldn't smoke, just because. From a "practical" point of view, they shouldn't smoke because of different factors such as, but not limited to, secondhand smoke effects, addiction, gateway drug effect, stunted growth and abnormalities in children of smoker parents, and so on.
I dunno, I guess I'm just more pissed off that so many people are dumb and behave in stupid ways than anything.
Oh, and the other thing that is sad is that I'm seemingly the most knowledgeable student in my philosophy class because I'm the only one who is able to answer all the non-subjective questions (i.e. "Who was Pyhrro?", "What was Descartes' concept of duality?", etc. Even those examples are kind of extreme). I'm trying not to sound arrogant when I say this, but it's basic philosophy that everyone should know a LITTLE bit about (we're studying Descartes), and everyone around me seems apathetic to the subject. Yet, I'm prepared to assert that philosophy is the beginning of all knowledge, and that's saying something from my Pyrrhonic standpoint.
Man, I just feel a bit like a jerk for spewing my pessimism here.
The thing is, if you force people to have the government hold their hands, it becomes tyrannical. There's common sense laws and laws that seek to protect people or insure privacy (and so on). But if the government starts saying, "You're too fat. We're putting you on a diet." -- that's bad. Granted, it would benefit the health of the person to lose weight, but the government shouldn't be the entity determining that.
Also, just a note about tobacco...pure tobacco (as in, just the leaf without added chemicals) is actually not as bad as people think. Tobacco itself is not a carcinogen. The problem is that tobacco companies add a lot of carcinogenic chemicals (which also have the side of effect of being even more addictive than nicotine). That's why cigarettes and chewing tobacco are so problematic. Good cigars, which tend to be JUST tobacco leaf, are actually ok for you -- if you smoke in moderation. (They're also super expensive...) My point is, it's not tobacco itself that is bad; it's the companies that put so many additives in their tobacco products that cause issues.
(01-31-2014, 04:24 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]The thing is, if you force people to have the government hold their hands, it becomes tyrannical. There's common sense laws and laws that seek to protect people or insure privacy (and so on). But if the government starts saying, "You're too fat. We're putting you on a diet." -- that's bad. Granted, it would benefit the health of the person to lose weight, but the government shouldn't be the entity determining that.
The government determines whether murder, rape or theft is acceptable in society, and for good reason. You yourself say that it's to protect people. But then, as I've said, cigarettes should be banned because of secondhand smoke.
The sad part is that, if the government were to give compensations to people who exercise regularly and eat healthy, not taxes to people who don't, people would immediately praise that form of government, but not the other.
I'm just pissed that society can be just so stupid if not self-serving sometimes.
(01-31-2014, 04:24 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, just a note about tobacco...pure tobacco (as in, just the leaf without added chemicals) is actually not as bad as people think. Tobacco itself is not a carcinogen. The problem is that tobacco companies add a lot of carcinogenic chemicals (which also have the side of effect of being even more addictive than nicotine). That's why cigarettes and chewing tobacco are so problematic. Good cigars, which tend to be JUST tobacco leaf, are actually ok for you -- if you smoke in moderation. (They're also super expensive...) My point is, it's not tobacco itself that is bad; it's the companies that put so many additives in their tobacco products that cause issues.
I'm fairly certain tobacco was used as pesticide, but maybe you're right. Cigarettes and whatnot should still, in an ideal world, be illegal, or better, not even exist. Still, if pure tobacco isn't a problem, then it's outrageous that the aforementioned companies be still legal.
(02-02-2014, 03:46 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]But then, as I've said, cigarettes should be banned because of secondhand smoke.
Just to highlight this: the only times that secondhand smoke is an issue is for those who around it all the time. For instance, it used to be that you could smoke inside Wisconsin bars. Eventually, the bartenders and owners got sick of feeling like they were smoking two packs a day. So, now, it's illegal to smoke inside bars here.
That all said, let's give a different scenario. Suppose a person (who is not allergic to smoke) walks by a smoker and happens to smell their cigarette. That person has ZERO reason to complain about secondhand smoke. They are not going to die or be harmed in any way, because the 1 second of exposure they had is of so little consequence. Assuming any minor damage occurred to their body, their body is capable of repairing it in about 30 seconds or less.
My point is, a lot of people paint any exposure to secondhand smoke as bad, when we should ONLY saying that prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke is bad. And that is easily solved by things like asking smokers to smoke outside and providing ash trays outside, as most businesses and bars do.
(02-02-2014, 03:46 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]The sad part is that, if the government were to give compensations to people who exercise regularly and eat healthy, not taxes to people who don't, people would immediately praise that form of government, but not the other.
I'm just pissed that society can be just so stupid if not self-serving sometimes.
You gather more flies with honey than vinegar. It's stupid, but that's the way it is.
hrug:
(02-02-2014, 03:46 PM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fairly certain tobacco was used as pesticide, but maybe you're right. Cigarettes and whatnot should still, in an ideal world, be illegal, or better, not even exist. Still, if pure tobacco isn't a problem, then it's outrageous that the aforementioned companies be still legal.
No, cigarettes shouldn't be illegal; they just should be make of pure tobacco, not packed full of extra chemicals. And, yes, it is outrageous.