But then again, there are many things that have been misappropriated to the realm of the political. That is what politics is now, a game of misappropriating things to politics. Things like gay marriage or, to go back to the main point of the thread- drug use; these aren’t even political discussions. They are simple personal liberties here that have been obfuscated and turned into political squabbles to distract everyone from the actual politics.
"Me, I couldn’t care less about how lenghty the paragraphs are in regard to articulating one’s philosophical assessment of implicit constitutional protections. Instead, my complaint revolves around how those paragraphs can go on and on and on as though the actual “human condition” did not exist at all. Satyr in particular is obsessed with exploring all of this in intellectual contraptions. "
It doesn’t, the human condition: when we are discussing the philosophy of law or actual legal matters themselves. You might as well include the human condition in a discussion of mathematics as a rationale for allowing your numbers to get fuzzy.
Legislating morality, my main issue with conservative parties.
It is good to see you posting again, Parodites.
I got sick, a cold; but those hit me harder than a flu does, as I’ve smoked three packs of cigarettes a day since I was 13 or 14, and I’m 30 now. And I rip the filters off before I smoke them so it’s really like double that I suppose. And narcotics suppress my breathing and coughing reflex, so together it causes me to accumulate massive amounts of fluid and I am very prone to pneumonia. I’d have much preferred to be vomiting than suffocating, but it looks like I didn’t die again, so I have returned.
When I was a child, I would obsess over death; every time I heard of the existence of a new disease or way of dying, I would become hypochondriacal about it for months; I’d spend hours inspecting my entire body for the slightest sign of melanoma, etc; every bump, lump, or discoloration was surely a cancerous lesion that was going to kill me. I feared to even be around second-hand smoke, worrying of cancer. At that age, about 14 or 15, I filled entire notebooks with ontological arguments for the immortality of the soul, trying to convince myself there was a way to exist beyond death. I was quite mad. But I learned to accept that I was going to die one day, and living for another year or for another 100 years makes no difference, when the only thing I want is to live forever. A year and thousand years are the same compared to eternity. So I pay no mind to my health anymore; exercise is for purely aesthetic and narcissistic reasons, as is the majority of my activity. ’
I am mad, but I am not mentally ill. There is a difference. If I could have a wish granted, I would wish to absorb every living mind into myself and live forever,- alone, the last being, the final end of all existence: as a disembodied consciousness drifting in the void after the last protons decay, for trillions of years, writing more books than there were ever atoms in the universe as a reflection of- me, of my infinitudes; forever. I want to become everything; I want to transform everything, into myself and live forever. A reverse solipsism. And after spending 15 years in voluntary solitary confinement, I actually could bear eternity, alone, for Time ceases to have meaning in that environment, which played no small part in freeing my mind from worry about death.
But that is gnosis. If you can “know” (gnosis, that is what the word means; knowledge beyond knowledge) eternity- if you can understand eternity, well that is eternity. That understanding is eternity.
That’s all both sides ever do is legislate morality (well that and loot us), they just have different ideas about what’s moral.
What they do is keep everyone distracted arguing morality, in the meantime they can slip the stuff that actually matters under the radar.
By they I mean the three powers, and the money interests behind them.
For example hate speech. You’re not allowed to criticize, or express dislike of someone because of their nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability and so on. That’s legislating morality.
Exactly, morality is largely a cover for these people, what they really want to do is find excuses to lower taxes for the 1% and raise them on the 99%.
Slash spending on the 99% and increase it for the 1%.
What they really want is cheap labor, monopolization, a sick, dumbed down population, mass surveillance, mind control, and morality, along with health, safety and security are just pretexts.
I think everyone has at least one obsession, or addiction, it’s a part of the human condition.
Did your mother (mom) go buy you the smokes?
Okay, point taken. Serious philosophers at work.
Which is why I posted this above:
Perhaps you missed it. So far though no takers. How about you? Would you be willing to take your own intellectual contraptions above and expose them to a particular context relating to implicit protections said to be protected in a particular constitution?
Come on, as though discussions of the right to bear arms or the separation of church and state, or the role of government is on par with mathematicians discussing whether or not 1 is equal to .999…
In terms of actual consequences to be born by actual citizens in particular contexts.
You note:
But: Even regarding freedom of speech there’s always the context. It’s not like anyone [to my knowledge] has ever demonstrated [philosophically or otherwise] the absolute inherent right of a citizen to say anything to anyone at anytime. Let alone as a “natural right” to be protected for all human beings everywhere.
Most here know the components of my own argument. What then are the components of yours? Given a particular context of your own choosing.
Well ok at least you recognize that you are mad.
As is with anyone who has a passion, to one degree or another.
I’m going through an obsessive process, myself, of understanding the perception of light levels. I find myself staring at things for a very long time, processing what I see, getting emotional about it. Unfortunately it is not something I can write about.
It will be a long time before my skill level can catch up with what I’ve learned by looking. I’m working on it.
In the mean time there are a lot of people who like what I have been making now, as amateur as it may be, and they’re sure to come forward and express their admiration, by the hundreds at a time.
As a consequence I am exposed to people, a lot. And man…
It’s pretty rough out there. I mean, if you think this forum is bad…
It has gotten to a point where I can predict what people will say, where the conversation will go, with a significant level of accuracy, most of the time.
Being surprised by something someone says has become rare. My communications are robotic.
In public it’s worse. Whenever I am at a bar or coffee shop, I feel like I’m in a different species.
So in your defense, you are not missing much in terms of what people can add.
You do need to exercise your social muscles, though, don’t you think?. It is too significant of a portion of the brain to neglect. Everything is so intricately connected in there that it is impossible to not cause other areas to suffer as well.
One can anticipate responses here since as it is a small forum one can model everyones psychology with some accuracy
Now human beings are not clockwork automatons but they nevertheless do have some degree of predictability to them
I meant everywhere, on the internet at large and in the physical world.
There are many practical applications to sampling people’s behaviors and reactions in the thousands as I have. To a person of my disposition, noticing the patterns is inevitable.
Okay, take these abstract assumptions about predictability and practical applications and behavioral patterns and note how they might be understood more substantively by discussing implicit protections of particular constitutional rights relating to a context in which different people have very different political prejudices regarding “the right thing to do”.
Otherwise, really, what’s the point of a thread like this?
Pedantry?
If you agreed with me, first you would need to understand me, which would make you an equal to me. I can’t have that. So you are quite correct: the last thing I want, is to be agreed with. Which does not mean I wish simply to be incomprehensible. No, I wish to be simply, a singularity.
Not only more powerful, but it actually has less peripheral nervous system activity. Central nervous system is where you get the good stuff: euphoria, pain relief. Peripheral involve unwanted side effects like, well: not breathing. So with the research chem I have in mind, you can survive the otherwise impossible euphoria. Not only that, but unlike all other opiates, it possesses NMDA activity, granting you what amounts to an ecstasy rush on top of the opiate rush. Simultaneously. From one drug. A drug that possess 100 percent bio-availability when taken orally, meaning that if you swallow it in pill form, it hits you immediately, as alcohol would, so there is no need to inject it. It is also hyper-addictive, it is so powerful that after only one or two doses, your body behaves as if you are withdrawing from years of heroin use. You are immediately physically addicted. And after even a few weeks, you are so far gone that the changes to the brain are essentially irreversible as far as I can tell, and you are stuck in a permanent state of withdraw, from which your only hope of escape would be suicide. Because of this severe issue, the chemical is only used in end of life palliative care, in the Netherlands. Go to the libraries and find the 1960’s-1980’s profiles on research chemicals, the writeups for synthesis are provided. The synthesis is non-trivial, but possible, without the multi million dollar labs needed for other pharms. I’m not stating the name of the chemical, I only wish to say that: it exists. As do 1,000 strange substances that have not been produced for many decades and are quite forgotten.
Understand you in regard to what set of conflicted behaviors in what particular context relating to the explicit/implicit protections of what rights pertaining to what assumptions underlying a particular constitutional philosophy?
Or is that not what serious philosophers pursue on this thread?
yes