h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<< That's why it's good to make a decision to never drive while drunk, even though nothing is black and white. >>

Can you honestly say you keep up decisions you make while not drunk if you are drunk? Still the point is moot given what you say in a minute.

<< What you're saying about altered judgement applies to all substances and practices that alter your state in any way, such as caffeine or fasting or anesthesia, or nearly anything. Everything we do involves risk, and every event affects us and other people. You can't avoid risk to other people, and if you try too hard, you'll end up curled in a hole. Minimizing risk requires that you balance it against something else, >>

This is a very good point. However what exactly are you balancing against? Drinks are expensive, addictive, dangerous to you and others. In their defence they make you more open. There are better ways to acheive openess. I just can't see how anyone could perform this calculation and find drinking worthwhile.

<< and just because people find that that balance allows them to drink doesn't make them callous. >>

Matter of opinion. A chinese leader decided that it was worth sacraficing thousands of his people in order to slow a japanese army that was persuing him (By flooding a settled river). Just because he thought it was worthwhile does not mean that I won't consider him callous. Not a fair comparison I know, but I'm exaggerating the point.

<< an aquarium gives you separation. >>

Interesting...seems odd that you'd experience more seperation from something a few meters away than from a video feed miles away. Still whatever works for you

*Can you honestly say you keep up decisions you make while not drunk if you are drunk? Still the point is moot given what you say in a minute.*

From my personal experience, yes. I'm not able to reach a point of drunkenness where I don't behave as "myself" before simply being incapacitated and going to sleep.

*Drinks are expensive, addictive, dangerous to you and others. In their defence they make you more open. There are better ways to acheive openess. I just can't see how anyone could perform this calculation and find drinking worthwhile.*

Drinking isn't my favorite thing in the world, and truly, the addictive factor doesn't apply to me, as drinking socially for four years hasn't done it yet and I have no interest in drinking more. The real reason is that the side effects are unpleasant. In its favor, you can't underestimate the fact that people simply enjoy it, especially as something to do with their closest friends.

Your argument reminds me of the whole "abstinence is the only 100% effective form of contraception" thing.

Sex is addictive and dangerous to you and others. In its defence it can make you more relaxed. There are better ways to acheive relaxation. I just can't see how anyone could perform this calculation and find sex worthwhile.*

<< From my personal experience, yes. I'm not able to reach a point of drunkenness where I don't behave as "myself" before simply being incapacitated and going to sleep. >>

So you rely on a lack of tolerance to modualate you? I wonder if it's possible that tolerance might improve.

<< Drinking isn't my favorite thing in the world, and truly, the addictive factor doesn't apply to me, as drinking socially for four years hasn't done it yet and I have no interest in drinking more. The real reason is that the side effects are unpleasant. In its favor, you can't underestimate the fact that people simply enjoy it, especially as something to do with their closest friends. >>

I guess I can't fathom why it's enjoyed. I don't know anyone who likes the taste (though I know a lot who try to get drunk enough not to be able to taste it) Makes it hard to factor that properly. Still the enjoyment would have to be obscene to justify the negatives.

<< Your argument reminds me of the whole "abstinence is the only 100% effective form of contraception" thing. >>

Why? I would say that the above is a completely accurate statement (Though certain chemical suppressors now acheive a 98.6% rate) The argument you don't like is the "abstinence is the only 100% effective form of contraception therefore should be practised" which makes the additional assumption that your weightings on actions are 100% avoid children 0% all other motivations. My argument is multi-factorial considering social, economic, health etc. there is no similarity.

<< *Sex is addictive and dangerous to you and others. In its defence it can make you more relaxed. There are better ways to acheive relaxation. I just can't see how anyone could perform this calculation and find sex worthwhile.* >>

Sex seems more energetic than relaxing. Also it's less dangerous than alcohol, generally more economical, less likely to lead to health problems and I'm fairly sure it's comparitively more enjoyable and breaks down more barriers.

Anyway the key difference to my mind is that the people who are risking the damage are the same people who are experiencing the rewards are the same people who agreed to participate, assuming it's consentual. If it's not then it damn well is wrong.

*Still the enjoyment would have to be obscene to justify the negatives.*

Clearly, this is the underlying point of contention. The experience is subjective, and we disagree on this particular statement, and this is not likely to change.

I take it back. Your perception of the negative consequences of drinking far outweigh mine, and that is another huge difference that is not going resolved, although it is not as subjective and should be possible to resolve, with evidence.

By the way, tolerance increases make it *harder* to get drunk, not easier.

And are you trying to get down to the fundamental disagreement between us, or just "beat" me?

Sorry for the loaded question. I think what I'm trying to say is that I like to focus on a central argument, and you seem to like to break up arguments as if you're trying to find as many things to disagree on as possible. Sometimes I think you also sound cold. Since we're not going to agree on this, I also started switching over to just talking about how I feel about things, saying specifically that they were personal feelings, and I feel like you've treated them like arguments I intended to apply to everyone. In general this is all bothering me.

<< I take it back. Your perception of the negative consequences of drinking far outweigh mine, and that is another huge difference that is not going resolved, although it is not as subjective and should be possible to resolve, with evidence. >>

We are going to disagree on the values of certain things. However I think there is something on which we can agree:

Drinking is of benefit to the drinker

The problems can affect other people who do not know the drinker

Is it right to risk another person who does not consent simply for your own enjoyment?

<< By the way, tolerance increases make it *harder* to get drunk, not easier. >>

I know. The point was that with a higher tolderance you spend longer in the 'drunk but still able to do things' stage before hitting the 'unable to move' stage.

<< And are you trying to get down to the fundamental disagreement between us, or just "beat" me? >>

I use one as a means to another. Trying to argue a point in order to 'win' is very informative, it makes both people say everything that they think and if I find that I hit a point at which I cannot counter an opposing argument I know that I need to rethink my position.

<< Sorry for the loaded question. >>

Why? A loaded question expresses your point of view while explicitally asking for a response - as long as it's not disguised as a normal question to trick someone it's a usefull tool.

<< I think what I'm trying to say is that I like to focus on a central argument, and you seem to like to break up arguments as if you're trying to find as many things to disagree on as possible. >>

I do try to break up arguments. I find this helps understand a point of view a lot. Arguing at the top level only leads to an 'is so, is not' problem. Breaking a problem down into contributing factors and analysing each in turn seems more sensible. I can see why it might seem like I try to find things to disagree with - if I see something I agree with I tend to leave it because I can see why someone would hold a point of view that I do (In that I know why I hold it) If I see something I disagree with I ask about it because I do not understand the point of view that leads to it. So I respond to every post by sending a list of disagreements, I don't intend to be aggressive by doing so but I can see how it looks that way.

<< Sometimes I think you also sound cold. >>

I get this a lot. Until recently I have seen emotion as weakness clouding issues and making it hard to make rational decisions. I'm still recovering from that viewpoint.

<< Since we're not going to agree on this, I also started switching over to just talking about how I feel about things, saying specifically that they were personal feelings, and I feel like you've treated them like arguments I intended to apply to everyone. >>

Example(s)? (I imagine I did it but it's hard to explain my reasoning without knowing exactly what your thinking of. In general I belvie that people take the best point of view they can so there is rarely a distinction between what they believe is moral for themselves and what they belive is moral for other people)

<< In general this is all bothering me. >>

We can stop anytime you want. Just say the word and you won't hear another peep about alchohol from me.

*Drinking is of benefit to the drinker

The problems can affect other people who do not know the drinker

Is it right to risk another person who does not consent simply for your own enjoyment?*

We've been over this already. I told you that everything people do poses potential risks to other people, and this is to be taken into consideration. The question as you laid it out is an oversimplification, as most people would *prefer* not to pose risks to other people, ever, although this is impossible. Even inaction can pose risks to other people. I think I would prefer to move on from this particular point.

*Example(s)? (I imagine I did it but it's hard to explain my reasoning without knowing exactly what your thinking of. In general I belvie that people take the best point of view they can so there is rarely a distinction between what they believe is moral for themselves and what they belive is moral for other people)*

In a personal case, there are always known factors that you can't know about other people. I know I'm not at much of a risk of becoming addicted to alcohol at the rate that I do it, given that I haven't yet and the negative side-effects prevent me from drinking more than I do now. I know that I haven't reached a point where I consider my judgement significantly different from my normal judgement, as in choosing to drive drunk. I know that drinking has never made me abusive, nor do I really want to do anything much except sit around inside and hang out with my friends. You can conclude that I think drinking under these circumstances, which are mine, is not morally objectionable, because I do it. But I haven't made an argument that these are usually the circumstances of drinking. I've seen frat guys before. I've seen them black out, regret their judgement, become destructive, and cause others harm, and that is bad.

I think it's possible to argue underlying points without going line-by-line, which annoys me because each statement is a part of a whole, and I think you should argue the individual points while remembering the context of the whole. I know this is vague, I think about it some more. And what did energetic vs. relaxing sex have to do with anything?

Firstly I should apologise for taking so long to reply. I thought that I was waiting for a response from you and opened up the thread to ask if you were ok only to find that you had been waiting for me for 4 days. Oops.

[On affecting other people] Yes any action can have negative implications on other people, but generally this is negligable. If you are stating that the damage done by drunk people to sobre people is negligable and I agree with you then we can move on.

[On personal opinions] I was asking for an example of where I had reached a conclusion about your personal habits. I might be putting words onto your keyboard and assuming that any personal statement ends "and so anyone else could do it under these conditions" and responding to that in which case I apoligise.

However I have to question whether self-report and perception of abilities are sufficeint evidence given problems like the gamblers fallacy. That there is no history of any damage or action likely to cause damage is more convincing, but it would need to be coupled with evidence that the situation is stable. Even in this case it does not explain how a person could take it up to begin with since there is no way a person could predict that they would react so positively.

[On line by line] I have recently come out of a debate with either master B or a girl called ben (both of whom have abbreivated their name to 'B' at different points thus my confusion) in which they criticsed me for responding to what I perceived to be their point rather than going line by line and dealing with each thing that they said. If you would prefer for me to answer in terms of points is the way I'm forming arguments in this post any better? With so many different people and no way to pick up subleties onine it's hard to see how different people like to talk about things.

[On sex] Fairly sure it was an aside, I'll just look through the b-log. Thats it, you said that the benefit of sex was as a way to relax in post 62. Wasn't really relevant. Topic drift is kind of a feature of hootoo - you've probably noticed if you're lurking in the forum.

I like the point system better.

I think that the damage done to sober people by drunk people can be negligible or can be serious. Either way, people determine how much damage is done. I mean, the consumption of alcohol doesn't need to lead to all-out drunkenness, or any drunkenness. There's no reason to umbrella-define ever person who drinks alcohol ever, at all, as a drunk person who does damage to sober people -- even if the damage done to sober people by drunk people is NOT negligible. And since anecdotal evidence can be more misleading than no evidence, and neither of us seems to be versed in alcohol studies, I don't know where this is going.

As for not knowing if you will react positively, you don't know whether you will react positively to anything the first time you do it. Rollercoasters? First day of school? First kiss? The only way to differentiate trying alcohol from all the other things you haven't tried is to bring preconceptions, which are usually based on anecdotal evidence, or what you see on *television* for god's sake.

I had a hard time coming up with one primary benefit of sex. But I don't buy "energizing."

By the way, don't worry about when you respond, I'm not timing it or anything.

I don't think sex can only be harmful to the participants. It can also hurt other people emotionally -- just about anyone, including other lovers, friends and family. Like drinking, it's a behavior that can be difficult to control. I'm sure the children of a prostitute can feel just as victimized as the children of an alcoholic.

[Negligability or otherwise of drunken behaviour] The govornment just announced new powers and a lot more money to tackle the damage caused by drunken behaviour so I suppose there must be some grounding for it. Then again it's not impossible that the govornment is acting randomly :P

[Umbrella defenition] I think on some level you do need to make umbrella defenitions, after all I think we can agree that being hit by a bus is a bad thing despite the fact that some people are completely uninjured. Possibly better classifycations are needed (e.g. a distinction between heavy drinkers and light drinkers) however this can only apply if people are able to choose which group they are in. It seems more likely that people decide to drink and whether they become heavy or light drinkers depends upon a number of factors (whether they become addicted seems an obvious one) not under their control. Thus there are those who decide to drink and those who decide not to.

[Not knowing reactions first time] Of course you don't. However we can guess, evidence suggests that jumping off a cliff is bad for me so I don't feel the need to try it and see what happens. Now making the decision based on bad evidence is wrong (esp as most people who jump of cliffs on TV do okay) There is a difference between preconeptions and evidence. 1/3 of students will develop a psychological addiction to alchohol at some point in their 3 year course. Scares the sh*t out of me.

[Describing sex] I said energetic (as a counterpoint to relaxing) not engergizing (which I agree it isn't). Pleasurable is the best I can come up with.

[Timed responses] I know, but if you'd seen me regularly posting on the forum and apparently ignoring your posts here I thought it might seem a bit off. Ahh! 1min 15 secs to respond before I've left you waiting too long

[Sex harming others] Ok it can. However in most of the cases that it can harm others I tend to belive that it's wrong. For example I would consider having an affair behind a partners back wrong. As it happend I think monogomys a ridiculous custom however I consider trust important in a relationship so I would condem an affair. Some cases are more morally ambiguous, is it wrong for a parent to restrict hir childs choice of partner, or is it wrong of the child to disobey the edict? Debatable. Is it wrong of a person to injure another or is it wrong of the second person to wish not to be injured. More of a one sided debate.

I agree that sex in some cases is wrong, like behind a partner's back. Likewise, drinking is wrong in some situations, like when you have a genetic history of alcohol addiction, or if you are naturally very angry or aggressive. Sex and alcohol are behaviors that need to be judged in advance on an individual basis. And while it may be somewhat reasonable to take away alcohol because some people ruin it for everyone, I brought up sex because I think it is not reasonable to ask people to never have sex. Likewise, I consider the consumption of psychoactive substances to be a (so-called) human universal, like facial expressions, language, supernatural beliefs, music, sex, etc (i.e. Donald E Brown's list of Human Universals). I think the most reasonable solution is to find psychoactive substances that are safer than alcohol, and encourage people not to use alcohol with an alternative present.

I don't agree that people don't decide whether they are heavy or light drinkers. What happened to free will?

I think monogamy is ridiculous as well, but I think this puts me under a lot of pressure since monogamy has such a death grip on western society, and I'm female on top of that. This is all christianity's fault.

Do you happen to know anything about the crusades/inquisition/stuff that happened at the start of christianity?

P.S. Human "universals" refers to the fact that they appear in all known cultures.

[Judging in advance on an individual basis] I think that this is easier with sex than alchohol, peoples reactions to sex are generally more predicatable.

[Finding a safter psychoactive] I think thats a very sensible approach

[Free will and alchoholism] If you went into an AA meeting and suggested that they all be light drinkers - wheres your free will what is the predicted result?

[Monogomy] I have ended up practicing it because Jenna wants to and I belive in trust so TAIAP I belive in it. If in doubt blame christianinty (also Thatcher) good philosophy. There are also evolutionary drives (relating to STDs etc.)

[Crusades] Not big on the crusades, Jennas reading a book on the subject if you want me to ask a specific question

No one said free will was easy. I'd be the last person to rely on will to solve a deeply seated emotional problem, after this whole "depression" situation. That's what makes an addiction difficult to break, the fact that people keep creating easy solutions like nicotine patches, so that addicted people won't feel the need to look inside and straighten things out. An addict with their drug taken away will just look for some other unhealthy way to deal with their problems.

*[Finding a safter psychoactive] I think thats a very sensible approach*

Thank you, an unlikely one though, I'm afraid.

What is TAIAP? I'm glad you feel that way about your relationship. Personally, I think unwanted monogamy put me through some emotional suppression that's probably on the path to a split personality. I know about the evolutionary psych take on it, but there are also opposing forces to monogamy. There are naturally monogamous species out there and humans are not one of them. So all this cultural pressure to do things that aren't natural for humans to do is messing us up -- mainly because, I think, no one tells us how to straighten out the opposing internal desires that people have, so that they're more balanced and all the different elements of the person want the same thing. Does that make any sense to you?

I don't have a specific question about the crusades, just an unfulfilled curiosity about the way the religion was put together, all the borrowed symbolism from pagan religions, how the books of the bible were chosen or thrown out, persecution of people who didn't agree with those in power and whatnot. I can ask someone else for an overview.

[Addiction] I suppose theres a difference between chemical and emotional addiction. Maybe the solution is to help people see that there are only easy fixes for chemical addiction and they can't fight an addiciton on their own? Then again I've never been addicted to anything serious (possibly because I'm so paranoid about it) so I don't think I have the experience to comment further.

[Safer pscyhoactives] The best solutions are generally the ones that people won't take. You only need to look at enviromental policy to see that. The best anyone can do is to talk about such things openly and often and gradually better ideas will spread around.

[TAIAP] To all intents and purposes. I must have been reading an avon hill rulebook when I wrote that. It's not very obvious is it?

[Unwanted monogomy] I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect match. I don't know any couples that don't have to compromise on some level, we've both made some changes. Nonetheless I love her and that is enough.

[Evolution:Monogomy] Preaching to the choir - couldn't agree more.

[Cultural pressure] It makes a certian kind of sense. Let me try phrasising it as I understand it and you can tell me if we're thinking along the same lines.

There are evolutionary pressures and cultural pressures operating agasint each other. At no point are people taught to deal with this so everyone ends up dealing with the conflict alone - as a result people feel isolated, dealing with socially unacceptable ideas that they feel that they are the only ones who experience. In fact everyone experiences this but because in our current society we keep such things to ourselves rather than talking about it people cannot share ideas on how to deal with things and some people who might have been able to deal with it end up as emotial wrecks. (A bit melodramatic but I couldn't find a better way to phrase it)

The other problem is that medical harm comes from adopting cultural over evolutionary values. e.g. Citys -> Crowds -> Stress -> An insane amount of disieases.

[Crusades] Sorry can't help there. As much as I'd like to belive that I know everything I can't give you an overview of the crusades. There are probably webpages liberally scattered around. A272558 is the only relevant guide entry I can find.

I just think that emotional addictions need to be treated appropriately -- that is, through emotional means -- and in "western society" (an irritating construct) we deliberatly avoid action through emotional means.

Damn monogamy.

If you study evolutionary psychology, it seems like there are evolutionary forces working against each other, not just evolutionary vs. cultural. The benefits to being monogamous (i.e. survival of offspring) are battling the benefits of not (i.e. more offspring/more resources). It's the same as any evolutionary adaptation. The benefits of walking upright (using hands for tools) has to outweigh the downsides (inefficiency, vulnerability). Or having a large brain (more cognitive capacity) vs. difficult childbirth and easy-to-break spindly necks. Even the parts of the brain are seen to be in conflict (e.g. the battle between the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex in processing emotional information). Humans are not built to have a unified consciousness. Humans want things that contradict with each other. That is the problem that I think people are never raised to face, and it's why we get emotionally addicted, in my opinion.