Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antsan]

Antsan you may want to remove or anonymise the quote as the poster has requested in her sig.

Oh, right. I'm really sorry about that oversight, Truean.

[EnigmaticHat]

The vast majority of people buy and consume addictive products and are not addicts. I consider buying and doing things that cause pleasure to be rational within limits. I treat myself now and again to chocolate or a bottle of beer for example. You'd quickly run out of true demand purchases if you count none for things that cause addiction.

But a person who is pre-disposed to addiction might make the same rational decision you did but have a different reaction once they've tried the product.

Although I understand that "ban anything addictive" isn't practical.  I don't really have a solution here, but I think there's a problem, if that makes sense.  I see addiction as a mental illness but I don't think our current ways of preventing or alleviating it are very effective.  Like people get hooked on one thing or another, lose everything, and then get shunned in addition to all their other problems.  I do agree with Reelya that medically treating addiction is important but it seems to me that ideally some effort at prevention would be made.  Which has happened in the US, I guess, but in a moralistic/ineffective way.

Isn't the notion of humans as rational actors within capitalism a fine theory that doesn't carry over well into the real world?

Yes, we agree on this.  But that's one of the core justifications of capitalism, or at least predatory capitalism.  If you don't think of consumers as rational actors, almost by definition you accept that the salesman as well as the costumer is responsible for the effects of the sale.  Which is why I consider cigarette companies, casinos, the WoW portion of Blizzard, all to be unethical relative to (most) other corporations.

(I'm at the point in the discussion where I've forgotten what my specific original point was, I'm going to sleep now)

[Truean]

D- See me after class (at the bottom of this post). You've failed to address any of the issues and instead made your own, put words in my mouth and drew the obvious next step to tobacco and alcohol? Predictable.... I am on the internet after all.... That said, I expected better from you. You're better than that.

There are no nuances. In your rush to counter my point, you missed it entirely: No needs are ever met by nicotine, or heroin, or alcohol, or anything that is addictive. All these provide is the short term illusion of meeting needs. The poor mice in your "study" would rather actually have their needs met as opposed to the illusion of having needs met. Gambling and most of the world's economic spending is an addiction, because it's false demand. We buy crap we don't need to impress people who don't matter or care, and pay for a house to store it in, by working a job we hate. That's stupid, but we do it, because we're stupid.

There is nothing circular about my logic, the term is often misunderstood and misused. I didn't say demand was harmless. You did. I said it satiates needs. Addiction never satiates needs, but it tricks you into thinking it does.

_________________________________________________
"When you define "proper demand" as anything that doesn't wreck your life," such tasty words you've put in my mouth. No.

What is so sad is that we don't teach logical structure. I don't give a shit what you think, but I care HOW you think. This is why politicians get away with their shit. Example of a counterargument to my point you could have used instead of ... whatever the heck that was you were trying for:

Here's what you should've written if you wanted to counter my last post Color coded for your convenience... highlight it if this bothers you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Addiction isn't the antithesis of capitalism.

Capitalism IS addiction. Addiction is repeatedly doing something, unable to stop without (sometimes severe) withdrawal. Capitalism is repeatedly paying for things you might not want and could really harm you, while imposing withdrawal if your payments are withdrawn. Drugs cause physical withdrawal symptoms, and so does capitalism with poverty, illness, debt collectors and possibly jail. Worse yet, capitalism sells addictive things, legally (cigarettes, alcohol, beanie babies), and illegally (heroin, smack, crack, beanie babies). You might have to make regular repeat monthly rent payments on a hovel filled with health hazards, or be in debt, for all sorts of things, forever. Capitalism runs on addiction, and addiction feeds capitalism.

Addiction may lead to terrible things, but so can capitalism. If two things lead to the same outcome, aren't they functionally the same? Mothers selling their children for crack Truean? Dickensian England had debtor's prisons and orphans sold into virtual slavery. I don't know which is worse, plunging someone into poverty and ruin from debt for food, lodging, and small luxuries, or for crack, because at least everyone expects the crack dealer to be crooked, but the banker claims legitimacy.... Is one worse than the other, or is damnation just damnation no matter the source?   


Keep paying a never ending pile of bills for useless junk, or shoot junk into your veins. Both are self destruction.
etc etc
______________________________________________________________________________
Title with rebuttal
Issue and statement
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

You see how the blue + the red = purple...? It's the structure. The lack of it is destroying western civilization by allowing lack of linear logic, promoting soundbites and sidetracks, and failing to focus on the issue. You wanna site a mouse study? Fine, that's there are ways to, but good god not like that.

[UXLZ]

I understand the reason for not wanting to be quoted, Truean, but it's kind of a pain when you want to respond to certain specific statements. >_>

Re: Mouse Study. Are you claiming to know what the mice would prefer? You may know what you'd prefer personally, given their situation and complete knowledge of it, but that's hardly what they think.

Re: Needs. Please give your definition of need. How far does it stretch from what is literally (and yes, I mean in the original sense of the word) required to live, regardless of the condition of that life?

Re: Houses. They do more, and are bought for more reasons than purely to store junk we don't need. It's unlikely that's what you're actually suggesting, but it seems to be what you're saying (from my perspective.)

By the way, what are beanie babies? I've never heard of them.

[Antsan]

No, demand does not satisfy needs, at least not if an addiction is not a artificially created need. Demand is just the abstract idea of someone being willing to pay resources to obtain that which the demand is for. That happens with addictive things all the time, so there is demand for addictive things. And there certainly are capitalist actors who are willing to cause addictions to raise the demand for stuff that is necessary to satisfy addictions.

Even if you redefined demand to mean something else that doesn't change anything about the underlying mechanism. As long as people are willing to give up resources to give in to an addiction and as long as obtaining these resources provides a bigger advantage than combating the addictions for some people, these people will have interest in abusing the addictive personalities of others.

[TheDarkStar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment

Also, the notion that patients in heroin assisted treatment are enabled to maintain "destructive behavior" contradicts the findings that patients significantly recover in terms of both their social and health situation. A clinical follow-up report on the German "Heroinstudie" found that 40% of all patients and 68% of those able to work had found employment after four years of treatment. Some even started a family, after years of homelessness and delinquency.

I recall that they had 98% unemployment in the group going into the trials.

The study doesn't appear to have a control group (glancing over the German article), so it's not really valid. Because the chosen group were an extreme group (almost all unemployed), regression to the mean indicates that the majority of them will improve or stay the same (because there isn't really room for them to get worse). I could choose any group with 98% unemployment, wait a few years while doing nothing, and then see a major increase in employment.

[Antsan]

The control group would probably be heroin addicts who did not get the same treatment. I suppose there are statistics about those.

[Truean]

I don't want specific things responded to. I just don't want words put in my mouth, though it happens all the time.

In re: Mouse Study. I'm not claiming to understand mice necessarily, though anything listing a "preference" is, like the study. Though I've actually studied it extensively, E.L. Thorndike, B.F. Skinner, and the rest of psychology's behaviorism school have extensively done this bit.

In re: Needs. I originally said, "needs and wants." At its widest definition there's some longing. I wasn't aware "need" or "want" needed defined. My contention was instead over the notion of satisfying a need, and the assertion that legitimate demand does, whereas addiction (illegitimate demand) does not (because you always compulsively need more). It's really the same idea as saying Pain can't be cured by purchasing infected needles to jab into your eyes. There is no demand in the market for pain relief for infected needle eye jabbing services. Emotional pain can't be cured by Heroin for the same reason. Some people may think it can, but ....

In re: Houses. In America at least, we have these horrid things call McMansions. Their primary function is to be a large impressive thing to impress neighbors with, and display wealth. Actually providing shelter is at best an ancillary benefit, as "bigger is better" ended up becoming the catchphrase. The housing market has since crashed horridly, in part because the banks were approving people for large houses they could have never reasonably afforded.

In re: Beanie babies, included primarily for humor. A collectable crazy over stuffed animals whereby certain rare ones would fetch obscene amounts of money on the market. This has died out though. For some strange reason, "Employee Bear" is $2000-$3000 dollars, and it used to be worth far more. I don't know why. People are crazy.

I respectfully counter, demand does satisfy either needs or wants. Demand presupposes a wanted thing or needed thing. Demand is not merely in the air; it comes from somewhere: needs and wants.

Demand isn't being redefined, its source is being attributed: needs and wants. If demand is willingness and ability to give up resources to obtain a thing, then certainly that implies a need or want. The contrary statement is absurd, that one would give up resources for something one does not need or want, and thus can't be true. Addiction is the illusion of demand, the falsification of demand. One does not need heroin to survive, nor does heroin bring pleasure or satisfy a want. Rather, Heroin is a lie, it promises relief (and fools you for a short time) but delivers agony. False advertising.

Much better structure though. B+.

Basically I contend there is no actual demand for Pet Rocks. It's just a rock and it's a sham. Even if you really wanted a rock of your very own to love and pet and hold and whatever, you could get one for free....

[Antsan]

So you're saying the mechanism is the same but we should treat it differently because of what started it?

Or, the other way round: A want does not need to be justified. Only because that need is destructive to the one having it doesn't make it less of a want.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So there's been a more-or-less detonation on the right about Planned Parenthood over the past day. Virtually all reporting sites so far are right to far-right, so I'll post the Snopes link.

This video supposedly shows the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood admitting to the selling of fetal body parts for profit (a felony crime, as opposed to voluntary donation to medical research, which is legal) and a description of performing partial-birth abortions, again a crime in the United States. It also claims that the doctor in question performs abortions up to 24 weeks, but that is an unsupported caption.

Planned Parenthood's response claims that the video is a quote mine and that the descriptions are all of legal activity.

I gotta say, despite this showing up on nothing more moderate than Washington Post it looks really bad. While lots of people are predictably focusing on her callous dialogue while literally slipping wine, that's just how all medical professionals get after a while. The important part of this is whether or not she is actually committing crimes and actually profiteering off of harvesting.

[Truean]

It isn't what started it, but rather the terrible intent and terrible opposite of what was promised outcome. You're focusing waaaay off point.

No. If someone sets up a store selling "refreshments," and have signs saying "thirst quenching," and then strap you to a table, force your mouth open and then pour lots of salt down your throat.... See the difference?

Same deal with the heroin. That's not to make you "feel good" anymore than the salt will "quench your thirst." The seller is engaging in the ultimate false advertising. Heroin does not make you feel good, but they tell you it will. 100% of the time, it will ruin your life, which is the exact opposite of what it promised. The need (or want or whatever, I can't comprehend why you're latching onto that irrelevant detail) is never intended to be satisfied, but rather made far far worse. Your thirst isn't being quenched, it's being parched. Your happiness isn't being granted, but rather obliterated.

There's no hidden anything here. What I'm saying is right on the label.

[Reelya]

I'm not sure about the false advertising for either heroin and cigarettes. You're getting what you pay for and you'd have to be living under a rock not to know that these things are addictive before you try them. It's not like a dealer can make his/her own reality. I don't think the "strapping down and pouring salt down your throat" example is valid. Very few people have needles forced into their arms, and they're usually doing it on the say-so of a friend not a dealer. People who become junkies aren't living in a vacuum, they almost certainly already know other junkies and can see the effects.

There is also the inconvenient fact that one hit of any drug isn't going to turn you into an instant addict. So it's not anything like having salt poured down your throat, and now you need water and never got the promised benefits. You have to repeatedly take it to turn yourself into an addict - to hit the point where your body is no longer producing endorphins and becomes chemically dependent. So anyone who is given "one hit" cannot become an instant addict by magic, that's not how it works.

There's also the fact that not everyone who tries a drug becomes an addict. Plenty of people dabble and are fine. If you take an amount of heroin that's not enough to cause the full physical dependence then people can and do actually take it for extended periods without it ruining their life. There are e.g. professional people who do this. And when you think about it, that's obvious. If 100% of people who tried heroin became gutter-living junkies then no-one would start. There would be a clear divide between those who tried it and those who didn't, and you could see anyone who tried it had their life ruined, so no-one would even try it. That's not the case. The dabblers feed into the pool of addicts. But that's like many things, which can ruin your life, but don't always.

[Truean]

You know why there's a greater punishment for selling drugs within 1000 ft of a school, and/or to children?

Because people do it and we don't want them to.

"Can't create their own reality?" My my, are you familiar with the tobacco industry?


Why would they say Doctors smoke them? Are they trying to imply that they're healthy or less detrimental than other brands?


Not a cough in the carload? Why? Does this brand make you less likely to cough and/or get sick?

Is that why they sell you cartoons to make young kids think its cool like this:



When what you'll really end up as is this:

Curtesy http://www.anti-smoking.org/children.htm Notice how we have to aim anti tobacco ads at children, because the cig companies do....

"I don't think the "strapping down and pouring salt down your throat" example is valid." No, that's too generous of an analogy. You get straight up cancer for cigarettes and we had to force it onto the packaging. And, that's just cigs. Most Heroin junkies don't live long enough for there to be long term effects. They either die, go to jail or get clean. Period.

" It's not like a dealer can make his/her own reality. " Really? WTF do you think the tobacco companies were spending billions of dollars on. That is EXACTLY what they made. They knew exactly what they were doing and that's why they did it.... They had to because their product kills its users and they need to hook new ones....

The "salt" metaphor

Are you kidding. It seems whatever has spawned this "blame the individual consumer" mentality lately has entirely forgotten the past.

[Reelya]

Someone doesn't like something isn't an argument, Truean. Why do I have to take it for granted because bible-thumping America doesn't like it?

By that token I should call to ban masturbation because public masturbation near a school will get you in tons of trouble. Therefore masturbation is downright evil. Great logic there.


Sure you need good information, but the consumer has some basic responsibility for what they themselves decide to do with their money. There are plenty of anti-smoking ads here, and pro-smoking ads are completely illegal. Yet people still start.

[Truean]

Are you trolling? "Someone doesn't like something isn't an argument?"

A.) As if I didn't know that.
B.) That doesn't apply here at all.
C.) It's well established that companies will spend billions clouding the real fact that their product will kill you and/or give you cancer or worse (yes there's worse). You know like cigarettes.

This has nothing to do with bible thumping America. I have nothing to do with that either. What are you on about? Please take a second and step back to realize you're not coming across as your best right now. I'm just not sure I can continue this conversation with you until your stance clarifies into better action....