The Glade 4.0

This argument is kinda why i'm against the momentary insanity plea, well apart from the rights part...

Uh .... failure to create more means the wealth that failed to create wealth is gone. If you spent thousands of dollars buying junk sculptures, all that labor which might have employed some other use is gone. It was used to build the junk sculpture. The raw material value still exists, but no the labor. You're confusing the fact that there isn't a "conservation of wealth" law to mean that nothing ever gets destroyed. In fact, if there isn't such a law (which there is not), that means wealth has to be able to be destroyed since it can also be created. Otherwise, there would be some entropic principle with regards to wealth. There isn't.



No I didn't. I brought up legal custodianship in the case of voluntary admission, hardly the same capacity you are talking about. The decision to harm themselves is only a "bad choice" because you believe harming oneself is a bad choice, regardless of what definition of harm we use. Even if "self harm" serves no purpose, we cannot objectively say it is a bad choice. That's pure arrogance. You are just appealing to your own authority and to common sentiment when you make such a statement.




Right. Nor does it make it necessarily a harmful choice either. It simply is a choice.



That's a pretty semantic statement. I would only argue it's only harmful in the capacity that it violates their rights (against their consent). If someone forced me to eat vitamins and healthy food or go to the emergency room (physically forcing me), I would call that harmful just the same. It's not harmful in a health sense, but that is irrelevant.



I'm not sure where you got that idea, maybe I miscommunicated something. Harm most certainly is determined by consent in the general sense. After all, everyone probably has some belief in some system of personal liberties or at least what should be lawful behavior which means they can theoretically be compromised which would be considered "harmful" in a generic, non-biological sense, but harm in the biological sense is something entirely else.

I do think voluntary harm is ok, and I believe so because I don't believe anyone has any right to determine what that threshold is for himself.

When I say self harm isn't self harm, I mean that when we say the word "harm" to mean something which someone doesn't want to occur against himself. If want to define some absolute, universal threshold at which harm occurs versus which something isn't harmful, then I would say no one has a right to keep someone from harming himself.

It is from a philosophical view under the impression that harm simply is "something someone doesn't want done to him against his will" I say that "self harm" is sort of a oxymoronic statement.

So, self amputation, assisted suicide (this one becomes more tricky because one has to ensure it wasn't homicide), mutilation or whatever people want to do is his own business. I'm sorry if that means some people who have a bad quality of mental health end up doing stuff to themselves they aren't mature enough to realize, or that immature young adults that are reckless end up suffering consequences they weren't ready for, that's just a challenge of life.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

No, it isn't gone. You're describing an opportunity cost, not the destruction of wealth. By this absurd argument any use of wealth for any purpose destroys it.



No, what's pure arrogance is pretending "harm" isn't bad. Regardless of what system of thought you use, harm describes something that is bad under any of them. That's what the concept of "harm" means - something with negative effects.

Moreover, yes we can objectively say "self harm" is a bad choice because the concept of harm is always bad, by definition. You can argue that something isn't harmful, but you can't claim it's not bad.



Obviously not all personal choices are harmful. However, you cannot argue that it is not harmful because it is simply a choice. That's just more begging the question.



So why exactly would we consider something harmful only because it violates rights? This is just rights for the sake of rights; trying to use philosophy to override observeable fact - which is what any of these sophistic claims of "personal choices can't be harmful because they're personal choices" arguments amount to.



I see no good reason that these circumstances should be allowed to occur just because you're worried it will infringe on your personal philosophy. Adherence to philosophy for it's own sake is an utterly worthless goal.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Use of wealth for any purpose can be argued to be a destructive, correct. That is the argument of consumerism versus investment. The question can't be answered by a man, or a group of men, but it can be answered by the actions of a market.

I'm not pretending harm isn't bad, nor am I disagree defining harm as bad. My mistake, when I said self harm in that case, I meant strictly in the sense that there is some biological standard of damage that qualifies. In this regard, why should anyone but the person self-consenting to it determine whether or not it's "harmful" (in the biological sense) or bad?



Where did I say that? All I said is a personal choice is a personal choice and a choice of that nature isn't inherently "harmful" or "bad" or "non-harmful" or "not-bad". If we say that harm is something which someone doesn't want to be subjected to, then that means self-harm cannot occur because that would make no sense. But I do not mean to speak to that capacity, not in that particular case.



Harm in the generic sense former, in the "biological damage" sense latter.



Correct, I even made that statement.



Incorrect, it is my view you are being sullied and distracted by the small scope in which physical biological damage is considered harm, yet I perceive harm to encompass a much broader and equally important scope. That is why I'm using both definitions. For example, we talked about unhealthy obsession with gaming which has other consequences than just biological health related ones. But ultimately, I realize that when you say harm to mean biological, physical damage, I am forced to accept that of course, self-harm is obviously a possibility. But I do not find it harmful in the general sense, because I view that harm is something which is determined by consent and I find this to be more important than preventing someone, no matter what his conditions, from physically damaging himself.

Like I said, the only time contrary in which the law finds legal custodianship to be the case which I only would believe would occur in cases of a) children/minors b) people who formally consent to being overseen. In the cases where the State may determine someone must have a caretaker, that is at odds with what I outlined above.


[quote\All this really amounts to is you dancing around trying to invalidate the concept of harm because you're worried about slippery slopes where determining a person is incompetant because they want to cut their own legs off somehow leads to regulating soda pop.[/quote]

Which it does, and there's no substantial difference. If you invent a difference, it's only so you can place your particular views in some sort of elevated distinction above the same arguments you find detestable, but are ultimately not different an any substantial way.



We happen to live in a society where personal liberties, exceptions being noted in The Constitution, are the basis for law in our society.



What you mean to say is you don't agree with it, because logically it makes perfectly, simple sense.



It's not adherence to philosophy for its own sake. The fact is, we live in a society where personal liberties and rights of the individual are maximized by the framework of our Ultimate Law. So it's adherence to the philosophy of the framework that our society is structured around.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Because whether it's harmful in t he biological sense is not up for determination. It is. If you do the same thing to an animal, it's harmed. All you're doing is relying on the ability of human beings to make a claim contrary to reality to say they have the ability to determine if harm is bad, when they really do not.



The circular argument is underlined. You're trying to show that the personal choice to harm onesself is not necessarily bad. You can't argue that it therefore isn't necessarily bad because whether it's bad or not is up to the individual.



No we aren't talking about about broader scope of things that might be considered harm under more "generic" as you like to claim, definitions. You're talking about those things. I'm only talking about biological damage, which, by it's nature is harm to the actual self, and is generally very difficult or impossible to reverse. My opinion isn't "sullied or distracted" by anything; that's what I've been addressing the whole time and you've been trying to switch back and forth between the definitions of harm in a manner akin to the "Nothing is better than God, a cheeseburger is better than nothing therefore a cheeseburger is better than God" examples.

I know perfectly well that you think harm is defined by consent, but I've seen no actual evidence of that presented yet.



Which is absurd, and flies in the face of reality. Normal, healthy people go to great lengths to avoid mutilation; when people do engage in self mutiliation they frequently are also willing to do it to other with or without consent, and people who suffer accidental, injurious, or medically necessary amputation require significant efforts to both mentally and physically cope with the consequences. A person willing to inflict those consequences on themselves in the first place is demonstrating incompetance to make their own decisions and exercise their own rights. It is the responsibility of government; specifically of the courts, to determine their incompetance and assign them a caretaker.



Except that it creates no such slippery slope (spurious, fallacious reasoning) and the fact of the matter is that I've demonstrated it to be different and you're just pretending I haven't based on the conclusions you're trying to arrive at. I've seen nothing from you but circular argument and begging the question.

In fact, if such a slippery slope would occur, it would be only a short time before almost everyone was determiend incompetant, grew tired of it, and disposed of the few morons who tried to extend such concepts in such an absurd and impractical fashion. It really doesn't matter if such a slippery slope is possible in theory because it is self-correcting in reality.



And that same society has determiend that people can be found incompetant to exercise their rights. You're committing a stolen concept fallacy; you want to recognize society's ability to determine that we will have rights but reject the limitations society attaches to those same rights.



No it doesn't. It's a circular argument. It's just saying that if you chose to harm yourself it isn't harm because it's a choice. It's nonsensical.



Except that it isn't, because we do not have any such philosophy. You're ignoring the other half of it where we remove the ability of certain individuals to exercise their rights when they do things that cause them to become incompetant. All you're doing is picking and choosing the parts of the way our country works that agree with your philosophy then saying that's the way things actually work.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."