Allow me to personal for a moment.
I believe I've spoken before about self-medicating.You see, I have an odd relationship with alcohol. I do not crave it. I do not "need" it. I can generally go months on end without imbibing.
However, once I have progressed down a certain path, I continue. This can happen on any random Tuesday and is generally uncommon in my life. But, when I leave the realm of sobriety, I have the desire to continue down the path.
And so, I do not classify myself by any of the labels we use. I will not seek out intoxication. I will have a few drinks and then a switch is flipped. A switch that cannot abide my everyday life. I desire... more. This does not seem to have a cut off or any modicum of reason attached to it. There is simply a significant difference between "having a beer" and drinking. I cannot say definitively where that line rests. I do know that once I cross it, my brain does not pause.
There are many interactions with alcohol. We are humans and patterns may emerge but are rarely demonstrative. I wished to note my own pattern as it seemed uncommon. I have heard various metaphors related to "man from the draft board" or "cut off" but I have never felt that warning. I have gone from "It's time to go home" to "I need a few more drinks" in a matter of moments.
If you too have a similar reaction to alcohol, I will simply note it is healthy. It is how your body processes a toxin. Pretending that we are unaffected by alcohol is not a solution. Realizing how we react to a given stimulus is the path to growth.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Friday, August 25, 2017
Brothers and sisters we have a problem
We have again seen what humanity is capable of and again seek to explain it. We see hate and we try to discover its source. We see violence and believe that all humans wish to avoid it. We have seen evil and label it misguided.
Perhaps we misunderstand evil.. Many people think of it as some outside entity, some corrupting source. As an atheist, I have never accepted an outside entity as the cause. Good and evil are human concepts and can only be applied to human actions. Whether or not humans are "inherently" good or evil does holds very little interest for me as I do not believe that morality is inherent.
If you go with the adage "You are what you do", humans can be classified as good or evil. I would love to do away with labels all together, but the source of the problem is labels.
If you are over 25 years old, you are not a disaffected youth. If you are a member of the group in power, you are not disenfranchised. If you choose to embrace the symbols of hate, it is because you feel a connection with them. If you choose to end the existence of another human being, you are a murderer. If you commit acts with the sole intent to causing a large group of people to fear for their personal safety, you are a terrorist.
As I've said many times on other topics, the line is not blurry. Attending a protest wearing riot gear is deliberately intimidating as is the carrying of torches and brandishing of weapons. Each point of escalation comes with a decision. Verbal abuse is not an excuse for physical violence. Physical violence is not an excuse for the use of weapons. There is never an excuse for targeting non-combatants.
The saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." is a false equivalence. If you deliberately target civilians, your political point is moot. If you commit acts of terror, your motivation, upbringing, socioeconomic group, and even to a large extent your mental state at the time are immaterial.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States does grant
Perhaps we misunderstand evil.. Many people think of it as some outside entity, some corrupting source. As an atheist, I have never accepted an outside entity as the cause. Good and evil are human concepts and can only be applied to human actions. Whether or not humans are "inherently" good or evil does holds very little interest for me as I do not believe that morality is inherent.
If you go with the adage "You are what you do", humans can be classified as good or evil. I would love to do away with labels all together, but the source of the problem is labels.
If you are over 25 years old, you are not a disaffected youth. If you are a member of the group in power, you are not disenfranchised. If you choose to embrace the symbols of hate, it is because you feel a connection with them. If you choose to end the existence of another human being, you are a murderer. If you commit acts with the sole intent to causing a large group of people to fear for their personal safety, you are a terrorist.
As I've said many times on other topics, the line is not blurry. Attending a protest wearing riot gear is deliberately intimidating as is the carrying of torches and brandishing of weapons. Each point of escalation comes with a decision. Verbal abuse is not an excuse for physical violence. Physical violence is not an excuse for the use of weapons. There is never an excuse for targeting non-combatants.
The saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." is a false equivalence. If you deliberately target civilians, your political point is moot. If you commit acts of terror, your motivation, upbringing, socioeconomic group, and even to a large extent your mental state at the time are immaterial.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States does grant
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.there was nothing peaceable about the assembly chanting "blood and soil" and gathering under the banners of our enemies.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
ad hominem
Don't worry. I'm not going to go through dozens of fallacies. Actual debate takes place very rarely in our society. However, I have run into this one so many times in the last year and it has been used so dismissively, I did wish to mention it.
In my opinion, if you mock a person's physical appearance you have already lost your argument whatever it be.
Ad hominem has often been compounded with Argument by Generalization in the cases that come to mind. The result are "arguments" that contain words like "libtard". Obviously, I see no value in debating such arguments.
So, why I am writing? Because we are better than that. We did not get here by throwing slander at one another. Yes, we did it often, but it is not the primary source of our many accomplishments. We do not persuade others by mocking them. We may persuade third parties from time to time.
It is time to remove the venom from the discussion. It is time to act like adults again. The only idea that has come to me thus far is to respond to such fallacious arguments by identifying them. This will probably be seen as "trolling". I hope one day, it will simply be considered "debating" again.
In my opinion, if you mock a person's physical appearance you have already lost your argument whatever it be.
Ad hominem has often been compounded with Argument by Generalization in the cases that come to mind. The result are "arguments" that contain words like "libtard". Obviously, I see no value in debating such arguments.
So, why I am writing? Because we are better than that. We did not get here by throwing slander at one another. Yes, we did it often, but it is not the primary source of our many accomplishments. We do not persuade others by mocking them. We may persuade third parties from time to time.
It is time to remove the venom from the discussion. It is time to act like adults again. The only idea that has come to me thus far is to respond to such fallacious arguments by identifying them. This will probably be seen as "trolling". I hope one day, it will simply be considered "debating" again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)