No, this isn't a great understanding, clever, or interesting. It's a reductio ad absurdum. The absurd argument presented is that true persuasion is the inability to persuade at all because those masters of persuasion realize all persuasion amounts to nothing more than submitting disingenuous arguments back and forth trying to trick the other into giving them what they want.

When "idiom" seems substitute for substance and thought, i ask for the thought and substance. You?

The problem is that you don't articulate a specific principle here that determines morality from immorality. — Hanover

I don't think that's what I'm trying to imply here. My point exactly, if you care, is showing that drug taking isn't pragmatic if you want a framework to work with. If cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin have no utility in the long run, and that money can be saved to going to the movies, where you can save the experience in your mind, then that's the better alternative in my book.

My own (past) drug habits, were the source for me talking about medical benefits here. I have ADHD and used to self-medicate with various stimulants. In the long run, they were detrimental to my health and welfare. So, if you need a drug, then go through the proper channels to obtain them for your needs. I really don't think drug taking is only about satisfying a curious urge. I tend to think they are mostly derived from some psychological issue.

You probably break laws you aren't aware of. So don't take a moral high ground.

You can't take a judgmental high ground when you didn't even understand the idiom.

Socrates thought so. — tim wood

He was wrong, as are you if you think likewise. It's not difficult to convincingly argue against.

In Socrates's defense he probably assumed good thinking men took the reins, but even he drank the hemlock.

So your point is that you see little use in it and would prefer to go to the cinema. They were bad for your health (well duh!) and you refuse to believe that someone can enjoy taking drugs on occasion without being a bit of a nutjob. Good point!

You probably break laws you aren't aware of. So don't take a moral high ground. — Drek

No doubt. But your argument, if there is an argument, is fallacious.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Is it that you disagree or agree? You've indicated both as far as I'm aware. And nobody is a nutjob for making mistakes. And drug taking is a mistake that can be forgiven if done once; but, not more than that.

Non sequitor, Terrapin. You can do better than that!

It's more stating a fact and presumption than a disagree or agree. It kinda goes back to the question too. Socrates was "Corrupting the youth" and paid for his life. His teachings were moral but illegal.

What's the fallacy?

He was wrong, as are you if you think likewise. It's not difficult to convincingly argue against. — S

Argue against what? Against Socrates's argument? Not difficult? Please proceed. Make your case against Socrates. I'll attend.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Is it that you disagree or agree? You've indicated both as far as I'm aware. And nobody is a nutjob for making mistakes. And drug taking is a mistake that can be forgiven if done once; but, not more than that. — Wallows

I disagree, and I don't think there's much more to what you're doing than expressing an opinion or a preference. Any apparent agreement was sarcasm. And it's neither a mistake nor requiring of forgiveness, unless the circumstances beyond what you've described make it so.

What's the fallacy? — Drek

You probably break laws you aren't aware of. So don't take a moral high ground. — Drek

It's called tu quoque - "you too." The idea is that I'm disqualified (by you) from argument on one topic because of my views, action, arguments - as you represent them - on some other topic.

I disagree. — S

So, on what grounds do you disagree? That satisfying an urge (again what's the urge all about here?) to take a drug isn't morally impermissible? I already stated that some drugs can be tried once, especially psychedelics, which are non-habit forming. Though, I would urge someone to try and do it in controlled settings, always. Although... I've read of horror stories about some people becoming paranoid for prolonged periods of time due to them, so again "controlled-settings".

You seem to disagree for sake of disagreement (hurray freedom!). If that's so, then I don't have much to add to what I already said.

It isn't you too, as I said probably... I didn't say ya did, maybe if I claimed it as fact. It's likely that you have and you are unaware of it - just a fact of reality.

Argue against what? Against Socrates's argument? Not difficult? Please proceed. Make your case against Socrates. I'll attend. — tim wood

Do you agree with his stance? If so, present the argument, and I'll address it. But I have no interest in arguing against Socrates for the sake of it.

I'd like to see where Socrates said you follow the law no matter how unreasonable...

So, on what grounds do you disagree? That satisfying an urge (again what's the urge all about here?) to take a drug isn't morally impermissible? — Wallows

Yep.

I already stated that some drugs can be tried once, especially psychedelics, which are non-habit forming. — Wallows

I don't agree that they can't be taken more than once.

You seem to disagree for sake of disagreement (hurray freedom!). If that's so, then I don't have much to add to what I already said. — Wallows

No, I disagree because I disagree. I'm just being honest. Would you rather I lie or kept silent? Well tough.

[Delete]

I don't agree that they can't be be taken more than once. — S

Fine, then. How much is enough? Once, twice, a hundred times? I think, that once you get the message to put the phone down, as they used to say back in the 60's.

It's an individuals choice how many times - 0,1,100.

Non sequitur is an argumentative fallacy. I made a comment. I didn't forward an argument.

Tim Wood is pulling out the big guns lol

Fine, then. How much is enough? Once, twice, a hundred times? — Wallows

Do you actually expect me to give you a number? What's enough can differ from one person to the next, and you can't really give it a precise number. But I have a rough idea of my limits. I know when I've done too much or not enough.

My point exactly, if you care, is showing that drug taking isn't pragmatic i — Wallows

I think that's true in most cases, but pragmatism isn't necessarily a virtue. We do all sorts of things that have no utility. An ethic of pragmatism sounds pretty dull.

I really don't think drug taking is only about satisfying a curious urge. — Wallows

It's probably true that a lot of drug use is self-medication, but I don't think it's fair to say that every sip of alcohol one takes is evidence that the person needs to seek professional help along with properly prescribed medication. There are many who live their lives taking various recreational drugs throughout their lives (not me, by the way) and live happy lives.

It's an individuals choice how many times - 0,1,100. — Drek

OK, but we live in a world where we usually have some responsibilities and duties to perform, like work or education. Habit forming drugs, even cannabis to take your example of talking about pot, has been shown to lead to poor academic performance. Don't take my word for it, just look at some statistics. I'd be fine with smoking pot, after your 25, due to the sensitivity of the developing brain. I'd be fine with taking LSD once a year to recollect on how it went by in a different mindset. I guess, what I'm getting at is moderation is key here. And, in regards to non-habit forming drugs, then that's fine. Stuff that I mentioned, like heroin, meth, or cocaine, are habit-forming drugs, and ought to be left out of the discussion. At least, I have no idea, what use they have, either spiritual or practical.

Are you sure it is immoral to break the law?
— Drek
Socrates thought so. — tim wood

He was wrong, as are you if you think likewise. It's not difficult to convincingly argue against. — S

Do you agree with his stance? If so, present the argument, and I'll address it. But I have no interest in arguing against Socrates for the sake of it. — S

The proposition, then, is that Socrates thought it immoral to break the law. His argument starts soon after the opening of the Crito. Keep in mind you're against Socrates, not for yourself, not against me. These latter two would be different in substance.

"You may fire when ready...."