Another Reason to HATE the USA PATRIOT Act.

[michaeledward]

I'll have to agree with Cory on that one. Michael is trying to draw a connection between harmless pleasure seeking (spinning, love) with what is generally considered "bad" behavior (alcohol, drugs). Same holds true with the sexual analogy.

I think Cory is just saying that if you hold one belief, its logical to hold the second too in order to be consistent.

You are incorrect. What I have described is the feeling. How that feeling is obtained has not been discussed. I have listed some of the ways that a feeling can be achieved. I have not indicated that any of the methods of achieving that feeling as being positive or negative - just that human beings do seek that feeling.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Exactly. To say that fundamental human nature cannot be regulated is a refutation of the whole idea of civilized society. There's a word for those who do whatever they want without consideration of others: savages. And despite what some Swiss hack would have us believe, there's nothing noble about them.

Exactly. If you were a substance abuser with absolutely nobody who cared for you and you didnt steal, hurt, crash into another, and never used any public support as a result of your habit then I suppose thats your business. Still against the concept of being a law abiding citizen in a civilized society, but ultimately harmless to anybody but yourself. But if your addiction brings pain, either emotional or physical onto another person and you become a burden to your fellow citizens, either through criminal activity or dependent on public support because of your habit, then thats a different story.

 

[Flatlander]

I'll have to agree with Cory on that one. Michael is trying to draw a connection between harmless pleasure seeking (spinning, love) with what is generally considered "bad" behavior (alcohol, drugs). Same holds true with the sexual analogy.

It's not a valid analogy, though. Michael's concept of "the fundamental drive for intoxication" differs insofar as it doesn't necessarily follow that other people's rights are being infringed upon. If one chooses to intoxicate themselves, others are not necessarily harmed (though of course, they can be as a result of the intoxicated person's behaviour). The "rape" comparison necessarily requires someone's personal rights to be violated. Rape is not an act of sex, it is an act of violence, by definition.

So, I see the statement:

Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?

as being an unfair ad hominem, and a reprehensible insinuation.

Beyond that, I don't think that Michael is drawing a comparison between harmless and bad behaviour, thought I suppose that depends upon how one characterizes such things. Personally, I do not consider the usage of intoxicants, be they legal or not, to be "bad" behaviour. It's self destructive in some circumstances, and there are offshoot consequences that can be realized, and in some circumstances, others can be hurt, injured, killed, or otherwise violated, such as in robberies, home invasions, and the like. That, however, is not the issue at hand. The issue being addressed, (though it's relevance is questionable) is whether it is natural to seek intoxication, and now, I suppose, whether it is unnatural to try to curb this drive.

Personally, I think that the premise needs clarification. Which is to say, unnatural to try to curb this drive by what means? Also, because it seems to be unnatural, does that make it wrong? If so, why?

 

[CoryKS]

It's not a valid analogy, though. Michael's concept of "the fundamental drive for intoxication" differs insofar as it doesn't necessarily follow that other people's rights are being infringed upon. If one chooses to intoxicate themselves, others are not necessarily harmed (though of course, they can be as a result of the intoxicated person's behaviour). The "rape" comparison necessarily requires someone's personal rights to be violated.

He didn't make that distinction. What he said was that because it is fundamental human urge, it is therefore unnatural to curb it. He didn't say only the harmless urges.

Rape is not an act of sex, it is an act of violence, by definition.

This isn't really a useful distinction. Mugging is an act of violence also, but that doesn't give us any insight into the assailant's intent. Rape, at its core, is an act of theft. Theft implies desire. It is taking by force that which would not be given freely. But this is getting pretty far afield from the topic.

So, I see the statement:
as being an unfair ad hominem, and a reprehensible insinuation.

It was neither. It's pretty easy to glean from Michael's posts that he is not somebody who would oppose rape laws. What I sought to do was to show how his sweeping assertion that human urges should not be restricted can lead to viewpoints which he would find repugnant. Again, I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Beyond that, I don't think that Michael is drawing a comparison between harmless and bad behaviour, thought I suppose that depends upon how one characterizes such things. Personally, I do not consider the usage of intoxicants, be they legal or not, to be "bad" behaviour. It's self destructive in some circumstances, and there are offshoot consequences that can be realized, and in some circumstances, others can be hurt, injured, killed, or otherwise violated, such as in robberies, home invasions, and the like. That, however, is not the issue at hand. The issue being addressed, (though it's relevance is questionable) is whether it is natural to seek intoxication, and now, I suppose, whether it is unnatural to try to curb this drive.

Whether the use of intoxicants is bad or not could be a thread all its own. The issue of whether pseudoephedrine should be a controlled substance does not hinge upon it. Because regardless of our views on using meth, there are dangers inherent in making it. Call me crazy, I don't relish the thought of my neighbor's house spontaneously blowing up.

Personally, I think that the premise needs clarification. Which is to say, unnatural to try to curb this drive by what means? Also, because it seems to be unnatural, does that make it wrong? If so, why?

Good questions. I think it goes back to your initial statement about other people's rights being infringed upon. But let's look at the whole situation instead of just whether or not somebody is putting something into his/her body. That's only part of it. Personally, I've never heard of a pot grower's house exploding so maybe that's a point in favor of the weeders?

 

[Flatlander]

He didn't make that distinction. What he said was that because it is fundamental human urge, it is therefore unnatural to curb it. He didn't say only the harmless urges.

Precisely. And, as committing rape is not a fundamental human urge, the comparison is invalid. Sex, on the other hand, is a fundamental human urge. And apparently, Michael feels as though the desire to seek intoxication is as well. And again, by your own admission:

I understand what you are saying, but I continue to disagree. I believe that Americans, as per the US Constitution, ought have the right to express themselves sexually as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Those Americans who seek to regulate what happens in their neighbor's bedrooms, IMO, hate liberty and seek destroy freedom, which is, IMO, very unAmerican indeed. Similarily, should someone choose to intoxicate themselves, let them do so, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Nonetheless, by your own admission:

Rape, at its core, is an act of theft. Theft implies desire. It is taking by force that which would not be given freely.

Which of course, is not sex. Ergo, an invalid comparison in the context of "fundamental human urges".

What I sought to do was to show how his sweeping assertion that human urges should not be restricted can lead to viewpoints which he would find repugnant.

by suggesting:

Or do you think rape laws are unnatural too?

which implies something about him that is quite improper. From the perspective that I'm attempting to illustate to you that I have, I view it as a nasty tactic. I'll accept that you're sorry that I see it that way, however, I'd like you to understand why I see it as such.

I'm sorry to have taken this so far off track.

:asian:

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Rape in the classic "stranger in the bushes" could be classified as a crime of violence. But many of the "date rape" (by and large the biggect category) situations are more a "I want it and Im taking it" act of fulfilling that sexual urge. So I dont really think his point can be brushed off that easily. If the issue is our "natural urges", and our freedom to persue them, we place limitations on them all the time. Nobody is being denied cold medicine in this case, its just being placed where it can be so easily stolen or purchased in large (meth production) quantities.

 

[The Master]

Rather than more reasons to hate the PA, how about a short thread on reasons to love it?

 

[CoryKS]

I'll accept that you're sorry that I see it that way, however, I'd like you to understand why I see it as such.

Acknowledged.