People not making arguments against your point is not the same thing as you not understanding or acknowledging them, which is what you are doing. You continue to be confused here.

Your point? Can you possibly think that the little snippet you cherry picked was what I was commenting on? You think that was his point?
Im tempted to call you a coward sir, you should address his actual point. If you actually think it through, it is crushing to many things you have said here.

The point is that it is the fact that no one wants to live in a lawless society that commits them to moral respect for law as such. Tim is right about this; but he is wrong to conclude that it is always morally wrong to disobey any law. — Janus

Where are you getting “moral” respect from? You just need to respect the law, or need for laws. The purpose is a functioning, healthy society. Morals don’t have to enter it at any point.

Well thank you. I always appreciate confirmation that what makes sense in my head, actually works :smile: — ZhouBoTong

A sign of wisdom. :up:

That is a great point. I think it will be very difficult to refute the way you’ve put it there. Well done sir.

He can be aware of fraud, wishful thinking and deception while still drawing the wrong conclusions about the data based on confirmation bias, or even his own wishful thinking. Those are not mutually exclusive. People are aware of wishful thinking yet still succumb to it, as with bias and many other things so your counter argument holds no water.

I must have jumped over that part. I get bored watching you try and explain the same shit over and over with little results so I confess I skipped pages here and there.

I didnt realise you had already layed it out in this thread. Like with Janus, I imagine we agree anyway.
Why didnt the people who actually think its immoral answer?

I cant imagine why, I guess we agree.

Ok, so is drug USE immoral?

I do not know, but presumably he was speaking to its fallibility. Thats true, scientific consensus can and has been wrong....then through science corrected. Thats why science is such a powerful tool/method, it is self correcting.
When no one believed Darwin, he just showed them more evidence until others were forced to accept it. Thats what this Stevenson dude needs to do, and hasnt. If the facts are in his side he will be vindicated. So far that hasnt been shown yet you remain convinced...the charges laid to you on this matter remain accurate.

Could we use the term “healthy”, or maybe “relatively healthy”. That seems the best descriptor to if I understand you correctly. (I think I do).

Using drugs of a kind, or to an extent, that causes significant harm I would classify as "abuse". — Janus

Right, we are talking about drug use not drug abuse, so you mentioning harm is non-sequitor unless you think all drug use causes harm. Is that what you think? If it is, then Im going to ask you if thats consistent with other things people do. Football causes harm to self or others, is that immoral too?

I would define significant harm as damage that significantly impairs one's mental, emotional or physical ability to be a normally functional contributing member of the community. — Janus

I do not think i agree with “normally functioning” member. The “normal” part especially. Is there something immoral about not being normal?

Nobody asked for a short answer, thankfully. Why did you opt to offer one?

Exactly, and in the case of this Stevenson fellow the cross examination resulted in a rational rejection of the testimony and the research that depended on it.
If he is right, then he needs to come back with more and better evidence, and prove his theory just like everyone has too. This is how scientific consensus works

Ok, lets do harm to self first. What qualifies significant harm? Does it matter if the person accepts the trade off of harm for whatever benefit they ate getting out of it?
I think its going to be hard to call it immoral in the case of harm to oneself only without being inconsistent with peoples freedom to have preferences
Also, would your answer change if we make a distinction between drug use and drug abuse?
The question is about doing drugs, not about what a bad actor choses to do to get drugs etc.
Most things can cause significant harm to self (and others) if they are being done in an excessive, reckless, and/or criminal manner. Why would you single out drugs?

I was being serious lol
Its clearly what this thread is really about. If it was actually about breaking the law there are many many other issues that could have been proffered but this one was chosen because Tim does not approve of drug use. The proper question if the law is really the issue would have simply been “is it immoral to break the law?”.
What Im suggesting is we ask and answer the question Tim and I think others are actually asking “is it immoral to do drugs?”.
How about it gentlemen?

The courts seem to do it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Funny you should bring that up. In a court of law it has been shown over and over and over that eye witness accounts are very unreliable. Laughably unreliable. Almost anything, even a strong argument, carries more weight.
If this research relies on that, and cannot corroborate the theory with real experiments and other methods of testing then that should be a red flag. Skepticism and more intense scrutiny are do, not acceptance of the theory.

I think its been covered ya.
We could talk about the morality of doing drugs, since thats what this is actually about for Tim and other anyway...

Correct, I do not hold that there is overlap. They are separate, with different basis and priority.

Its not missing, I didnt include it because I do not acknowledge it. Its just the convoluted way you are thinking about it. You are making it more complicated than it is, and only end up making a conflation that is making it confusing for people to discuss the matter with you.

Do you see any obligation to obey the law as law? Not to say that you cannot break a law on moral grounds, but that at the outset the law must be respected as law, before it is broken as immoral law. My view is that law imposes a duty. Whether it's observed is decided after. — tim wood

Not sure what you are getting at here. The distinction and its consequences seem obvious to me.
A law abiding person follows the law. A moral person, their moral standards. Sometimes these come into conflict, and a person must decide which has a higher priority to them. Where lies the mystery?

And counter question: let's suppose you-all are right: that breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood

Nothing happens to the Law, its integrity is still intact. The person who does something illegal still has to deal with the consequences of breaking the law, a fine, jail, whatever. The morality of the act also maintains its integrity. This is because the two things are separate, they are not the same thing.

But apparently I’m the one here exhibiting ‘bias and prejudice’, right? — Wayfarer

Yes, I believe that is the case. It seems to me that you are projecting here. At the very least, you are no more open to your view being wrong than they are that your view is right.

I’m not saying that others aren’t thinking rationally. I’m saying that adherence to a secular-scientific worldview inhibits consideration of such ideas. This is based on several of the remarks that have been made, to whit, ‘nonsense’, and ‘pigs might fly’. You think I am being uncharitable? — Wayfarer

You are saying that they have come to the conclusion that your “rebirth” idea is nonsense because of their own bias or lack of consideration. If they have done so, that would be irrational.
Therefore, you are calling them irrational, incapable of giving your idea a fair shake.
You are not accepting that they could have given your idea full rational consideration and found it to be unconvincing and non-sensical.
You did not make a philosophical argument in the OP, you asked a series of questions, made some suggestions but didnt really make a case. Then when you were met with skepticism you brought in the research, which is very weak and unconvincing to people.
So, instead of dismissing the responses as irrational and summary dismissal Im suggesting you accept that the science just isnt convincing and instead make an actual philosophical argument.

What I mean is, if you're not attached to such an attitude, then such ideas as these may not appear as threatening or offensive as the plainly do to many of those here. I'm not saying that out of a sense of superiority to others but because I really do understand how outlandish the idea is, from their viewpoint. It's a sensitive and difficult topic. That's what I meant. — Wayfarer

Not everybody who disagrees with you is attached to that attitude, me for example. I do not feel threatened or find it offensive to some sensibility I have, I just find it unconvincing.
I would go so far as to say its only a minority of people who disagree with you in this that are doing so as a knee jerk reaction to the idea itself. You show prejudice here, judging those who disagree as biased or otherwise incapable of thinking rationally about the issue, where you actually do not have any evidence thats the case at all.
I think irony is making an appearance here, as it seems like the one that is letting bias and personal sensibility inform their view is in fact you.

I have a suggestion. Put aside the research, no one seems convinced by it anyway. Put aside the scientific reference and address the issue as a matter of pure philosophy. Begin this discussion anew with your own philosophical argument, and discuss that. After all, If the idea cannot stand up to philosophical scrutiny, people are certainly not going to put much stock into it standing up to scientific scrutiny either. Make your case philosophically, and once you have convinced people of that perhaps the science part can be re-introduced with a bit more strength to it.

Lol, ok.

Im not really sure where you are coming from here. I do not recall the war being at all the focus of what he was about. Why would his teachings to the youth of Athens weaken the war effort? When Socrates spoke of soldiery it was from his own experience as a soldier, and wasnt derogatory that I can recall.
Also, Socrates was willing to die for his principals, in fact he did. To suggest he should have put them aside to maintain some questionable unity (questionable that his teachings would effect unity) is to not understand Socrates and the importance of his story.

So...how is your comparison with WW2 valid?
Anyway, sounds like Socrates had a point, rather than just being an asshole.
Also, his execution was on account of his philosophy and against the grain teachings to the youth of Athens.

Were they mortal enemies with Sparta because the Spartans were like Hitler?
Were the Athenians being lied to?

They killed Socrates because he was acting like an ass. — YuZhonglu

In what way?

A democracy isnt just about the right to vote. The people have a responsibility to be informed, thats part of it. The state of democracy is the west is a result of the voting public sitting on its ass and being content to know nothing. The people have failed their democracy, not the other way around.

Good point, not to mention that the number people hearing voices greatly surpasses the numbers of this research. That should be a red flag right there.

Holy shit, you are not making a major argument against ANY position! You are baffled, and should pay attention to what you are being told so you can learn where you are making semantic and philosophical mistakes. Good god man!
The lack of understanding is entirely your own, and Terrapin has laid it out very plainly. I do not know whats blocking your ability to comprehend the very very simple distinctions and results of those distinctions to the subject matter but its aggravating me and Im not even the conversation! If you are trolling, then hats off, you are showing true mastery!

Well said mr Drake.

You must not be paying close attention. We are in agreement.

State interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things. The state should serve us, not bind us.
I did not quote or refute because I agree, the state should do what it can to ensure religions obey the separation of church and state. Thats not the same as restricting religions rights that we non-religious people enjoy such as freedom of association, to speak and promote our personal beliefs (so long as they do not cross the line separating church and state) and to hold personal beliefs others disagree with. I view it a personal duty to speak out against nefarious or harmful belief systems, not a state one. Thats the only way it can work.
I agree secular law is better, its just that secular law should focus on being secular rather than being against any particular religion. Again, thats the only way it can work.

Well you say you agree, but then immediately followed up by supporting state interference. Im no fan of organised religion, Im an anti-theist, but it cannot work that way. People have to be free to choose for themselves, thats the only way other people can be free to choose for themselves.
There are certain aspects of our system that are biased towards religion, like tax exemption or religious folks standing in the way of gay civil unions and of course those should be changed as per the separation of church and state but having the state take ANY side has always been a disaster.

I agree, in fact the only way to protect religious or non- religious belief is to ensure that no such belief is ever backed by the state.