The Shred Room II (with extra youth)

Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: All interested parties should know that the Adderall only made me kind of dizzy. That's disappointing. :( I'm distrustful of taking medicine unless absolutely necessary. The only times I ever have are when my allergies were KILLER or when I've had a migraine. Yeah, but you read Ayn Rand, and your opinion of mental illness borders on that of Scientology's, so why should I listen to you? :P   We should have been more suspicious of having the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve strongly believe in the phrase "Greed is good". Ayn Rand and Scientology are nothing alike. No, they are not, but your opinion that all problems can be resolved by internal self-discipline is.

If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is?

Leningrad wrote: 'Dancing Queen' by ABBA is one of the greatest songs ever written.

No way.

MovingPictures07 wrote: If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is?

Leningrad wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is? Your genetics? Your immune system?

Genetics make up who you are, but in the end you make every decision that you assume. When's the last time you heard someone say, "But I didn't do that; my genetics made me!" ?

Your immune system, again, is uncontrollable by nature, and the origin of it is irrelevant to whether you make rational decisions or not. The only information that is affected by this is health information, which is there to inform you to make decisions.

Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is? Are philosophical ideals really more important to you than science?

How is such a broad and vague inquiry even relevant or of any value?

You make your own decisions and responses based on your highest held values and core being (i.e.: your determined personality/soul/whatever you want to call it). What's your point?

MovingPictures07 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is? Are philosophical ideals really more important to you than science? How is such a broad and vague inquiry even relevant or of any value? You make your own decisions and responses based on your highest held values and core being (i.e.: your determined personality/soul/whatever you want to call it). What's your point?

Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is? Are philosophical ideals really more important to you than science? How is such a broad and vague inquiry even relevant or of any value? You make your own decisions and responses based on your highest held values and core being (i.e.: your determined personality/soul/whatever you want to call it). What's your point? It is relevant because science says sometimes people cannot be held responsible for their actions (and some would take that further into determinism but I'd rather not), and you are disagreeing, based on what?   baby, don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more

Then yes, philosophical ideals are more important. People can always be held responsible for their actions. Even under the influence, that person chose to drink to the point of absolute stupor and drunkenness and therefore can be held accountable for any actions they take.

I'm disagreeing based on rational analysis and observations.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: If you're not in charge of who you are or how you respond, then who is? Are philosophical ideals really more important to you than science? How is such a broad and vague inquiry even relevant or of any value? You make your own decisions and responses based on your highest held values and core being (i.e.: your determined personality/soul/whatever you want to call it). What's your point? It is relevant because science says sometimes people cannot be held responsible for their actions (and some would take that further into determinism but I'd rather not), and you are disagreeing, based on what?   baby, don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more Then yes, philosophical ideals are more important. People can always be held responsible for their actions. Even under the influence, that person chose to drink to the point of absolute stupor and drunkenness and therefore can be held accountable for any actions they take. I'm disagreeing based on rational analysis and observations.

You missed my point entirely. Degrees of culpability under the influence of substances is an entirely different subject than someone who is bipolar, which is what I brought up.

Edited by Henry Plainview - January 09 2009 at 21:45

Henry Plainview wrote: You missed my point entirely. Degrees of culpability under the influence of substances is an entirely different subject than someone who is bipolar, which is what I brought up. I don't think mental illnesses are near like physical illnesses; thus, I avoid the terminology or categorizations of words like "bipolar". It's only a way to group and restrict an individual's behavior in an attempt to try to explain it through knowledge based purely on mass generalizations. It still doesn't take away from the fundamental concept that YOU and you alone are responsible for your actions, no matter what "disease" you may have.   Although while on the subject of illegal substances, I just slipped some LSD into your drink. Are you culpable now? That is an interesting point, actually, and quite a hard line to say for sure. I would say, depending on the method by which you slipped that substance into my drink, the person is still to a degree culpable (though not as much as someone who would directly choose to consume LSD)... if you're not paying attention and the other person slipped it in there pretty obviously, well, it's at least partially YOUR fault for not noticing and for taking the drink (along with the fault of the person who put it in there). The answer to this depends entirely on the circumstances, but in the end it still is bound by the previously stated concept. If you end up killing someone while under the influence (though I'm not sure what would prompt you to do that), the conditions under which you committed the action don't matter. You still killed someone. Again, a complicated matter.   And is not weakness genetic? Now if this were Bioshock... No, weakness is not genetic. It's a strand of controllable, conscious decisions or responses.