What was it that someone said (Einstein? I may be wrong) you can't solve a problem with the same mind-set as the one that created it. Until we understand that we have to raise our state of being in order to find real solutions, we'll just keep compounding what we've already done.
Both at the same time? Do you genuinely love reading, or do you love reading things you love to read? Would you feel the same about reading something you found boring and dull? Playing an instrument seems closer to what might engender feelings of love, as we know how much music can affect us. Perhaps just listening to it, which is what I do, and creating it, in the same way that writing does for me, creates a different vibration that feels like what you're doing, at the time, in the moment, is all you want to do. If that's so, then that seems as good a definition of love as any.
*Just casually lurking the forums* ... "Would you feel the same about something you found boring and dull?" WHAT!? You just basically told him what he's feeling at that moment, and asking him how he'd feel about that. Is that some recursive reasoning joke?
I suppose if I'm reading music I can enjoy the two at the same time. I genuinely love the mental conditioning that comes with reading. Even if its on a subject that doesn't particularly interest me. I'll learn about whatever I can to further expand on my trivial knowledge. And you pretty much nailed it in your second paragraph so there's nothing more for me to say on that.
I don' think there is such a thing as a non-problem causing solution In the study of economics, the biggest reason I found as to why government economic sanctions fail is this: there are ALWAYS unintended secondary effects of any thing. Sure it might cause one thing to change, but you also effect other things to a smaller degree and when the smaller things add up, theres big change. For example, lets say your a village in a desert next to some mountains. Your people are dying of thirst. So you and the village elders decide that the warriors should dig a canal from the mountains to the village to take water from the mountains to the village. Well they do this and the village has water. But now the lake where that stream emptied begins drying up, so the packs of deer that grazed there begin to leave. Your village is now starving to death, so they capture so livestock and start razing it. Thats all good until the livestock eats all the vegitation near the village so they have to move the village now. They move to a place with water already there lets say. But now a neighboring tribe wants that spot because its a good spot. So now there is a 50 year war that wipes out half of both tribes. So which ever tribe won that spot starts living there. All goes good until there population grows so large they consume all the resources nearby so they branch off into smaller groups. 400 years later all these groups have developed into tribes with their own identities and start waring with each other over scarce resources. Everyone dies again.....and the cycle continues.... The point is any action has multiple results When you allow an action you don't allow another action to take place.
Every action has a reaction, yes, but the people making these actions in modern society are some of the brightest minds the human race has ever seen. And using a pre-modern tribe as an example, although demonstrating your point aptly, really is of no reflection on today's society. Those tribesmen, to me, sounded like complete idiots - when considering our current knowledge of course. It's freaking hard being PC. Today, by utilising science, we can run complex simulations on many different situations and prepare for many disasters. And although our actions might have unforseen consequences, we are better prepared to face those effects through rigorous planning and anticipation. Science FTW.
the bold is a logical fallacy. an Apeal to authority Whats your solution to a tribe that needs water? Or just tell me a solution to a problem in society and a solution and I'll tell you the secondary effects your not considering.
So what you're saying is that the people in the most prominent positions of power in society are, for lack of a better word, stupid? Instead of looking at a problem that is not yet solved, let's look at one that is solved and try and see how you would have did it differently, okay? Let's hope your hindsight ain't 4/20. It's the mid 1940's, and WWII has the world in a ... Wiat a second. I have a better idea. Would you make pot legal across the world? Tell me what the unforseen outcome would be, oh wise one.
No, and you just commited another logicsl fallacy called a straw man. I'm saying that you can't argue that people in charge are smart thus they will have the right solution. That is not basis to say there solution will be right or good. Yes if I were in charge of the Earth, pot would be legal worldwide. More people would probably consume weed as it became normalized in the culture. As a result i'm sure a few more children might try pot earlier due to it being somewhat easier to access and more acceptable. There would be numerous economic effects as people begin to replace other things with it, alcohol, painkillers and anything that can be replaced with hemp being three things that come to mind immediately. I'm not sure if there will be a net increase in jobs or not, due to old jobs being phased out due to there needs being filled by cannabis/hemp products. Hell, mabye there will be a baby boom because of all the stoners finnaly being able to get good jobs growing and selling weed. So then the economy grows and standards of living go up. Alot of other shit would probably happen too, but none of these factors even affects my decision of whether weed should be legal or not. That is a philosophical/moral question. Take an economic example like minimum wage laws. Sure the people who have jobs make atleast X amount. However, statistics have shown that places with higher minimum wage also have increased unemployment among youth, non-trained workers, and minorities. So are minimum wage laws really a good thing for the economy? People won't work if the wage is too low so I say let the employee and the boss decide the wage between themselves. Instead with Min wage laws, you can't hire someone to do a super simple unskilled job for less than min wage. In my state it's 9.04 an hour. Some jobs just arn't worth that much an hour. Its no coincidence that the place with no min wage laws is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Heres another interesting example Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As you tax people a higher percent, they figure out how to avoid the tax or just make less money. Thus total revenue goes down.
How was that a logical fallacy? I was saying that the people in prominent positions in society are highly educated and have vast experience, and thus they are smart. And then you said it was a appeal to authority, which implied that they aren't smart, correct?
Do you really think everyone is going to be smoking weed once it's legalised? If it is legalised, and that's a big if, scientists would get goverment grants to isolate and enhance the Canniboids. Many private companies would even create their own strains to sell at the thousands of dispensaries. But even so, many people will still not try or use pot period - here I'm talking about the religious people, who are the majority of the population. And again, if this gets legalised, you can be sure some lunatic will take it as a sign that the end is near. Again giving pot a negative rap. You better pray scientology doesn't get involved. Those billions of dollars would really get the message across in advertising. And lastly, you didn't exactly go into any of the "unforeseen" consequences of weed being legalised. You simply spouted what every pothead already expects when weed is legalised. You simply posted things on the more positive side, why don't you try and be less biased and see the problem from both sides?
Where did I say everyone is going to smoke? An yes its a logical fallacy. It's like saying "the people in charge of the church are smart, so what they say it right". For me to accept there solution as a good one they have to show why its good not just say I'm the leader of the church therefore its good. Its not a judgement of smart or not. and there will be unforseen consequences. I can't predict them, I don't control the actions of billions of people and how legal weed affects them.
@MysteryRoach I emphasised the word smoke, and then followed it up with a sentence that would make the meaning thereof very clear: What I meant wasn't that everyone was going to smoke, but that they would use other methods to ingest the weed. Methods such as weed pills, oils and shit like that. I swear, you guys are really thin-skinned over here. Just chill. And about that fallacy, what I meant was that those people are educated, so using the church people as an argument is actually a strawman. Admit it. And lastly, you were bragging a couple posts back as to how you could predict all these unforeseen consequences from small actions, but you can't - that's all I wanted to prove. Anyway, we're getting far away from the OP, so let's just quit this pissing contest, coz I'm sure we can go all night as you probs had a lot of "Kool-aid," right?
That last part was just a clever pun, put in there for the sake of being a clever pun, so please do not take offence, as I didn't intend any harm.
So you think everyone is going to start ingesting cannabis if its legal? Alcohol is legal and not everyone drinks it and the church thing is a comparison. You can't claim because someone is an authority there solution is right, for the third time. I wasn't trying to imply I could predict everything. I'm saying that when you take an action, other shit besides your intended goal happens.
I explained that the emphasis lands on the word smoke, so that would imply that I was talking about those that were going to use cannabis. And I tried to say that people who are educated and have experience in a specific field, know a hell of a lot more than those who aren't so educated. That is not an appeal to authority, you have your facts wrong. And lastly, your analogy was a complete strawman. Anyone with leadership abilities can be a pastor of a church, but only someone who has years of experience and education can be in a prominent position in society. Hell, even that so called jackass you people called W. Bush graduated from Yale. And you people thought he was an idiot? Can you say you did the same? Anyway I already said that you misjudge my posts to contain fallacies that aren't there, not to mention the fact that you keep using strawman arguments against me, but that's all besides the point. I forfeited the argument in favour of discussing the original topic of the thread. So let's do so. Just for fun's sake you are also commiting tbe red-herring fallacy, do you know that? Stop projecting fella.