Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[Vol423]

Do you believe people want to be addicted to opiates?

You obviously know nothing about the topic you are trying to discuss so if I were you I would just move along.

If a person is serious about not wanting to get addicted to drugs, they should probably be extremely attentive about the things that they choose to snort. Obviously, that isn't a prerequisite to getting addicted to opiates, but steering clear of that is a step in the right direction (and the subject of the post to which you responded negatively).

 

[Nuctech777]

LOL saying people who abused it by snorting it are "victims" is also abhorrent and offensive to actual victims. There are victims who should not be blamed, but people who intentionally abuse drugs for recreational purposes are not victims.

You're not usually such a binary poster. This situation has nuance, it's not 100% in either direction. Don't be a stereotypical millennial by trying to make it that way. Some people can be evil and others can be victims and others not be victims all in the same scenario.

Exactly. You can’t make assumptions about a whole group of people based on the actions or experience of a subset of individuals. It would be like using millennial as an insult and thinking you are clever.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I just like takes that are circumspect and moderate. Everything you all are saying is probably true, but laying blame at the feet of any single party or even on a single side of an issue is rarely accurate.

Just because an argument is moderate doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean it's not, but moderation isn't the litmus test for truth. Truth is the litmus test for truth.

Per circumspect, truth is often risky these days.

 

[jave36]

Just because an argument is moderate doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean it's not, but moderation isn't the litmus test for truth. Truth is the litmus test for truth.

Per circumspect, truth is often risky these days.

99.9999% of the time, especially in super complex situations, the truth is not an extreme or a binary. So, I disagree, when an argument isn't moderate, it's a safe bet it's not true.

 

[jave36]

Exactly. You can’t make assumptions about a whole group of people based on the actions or experience of a subset of individuals. It would be like using millennial as an insult and thinking you are clever.

It wasn't an insult. It was comparing and aligning someone's statement with the stereotype of a group that has vastly altered how conversation happens in our culture by being binary and extreme too often. Which is different than using millennial as an insult. If you cared about being accurate and moderate instead of trying to come up with a clever zinger, you'd have caught the nuance. But because you clearly have a propensity for insults over civilized discussion, you projected that on to me.

 

[Orange_Crush]

99.9999% of the time, especially in super complex situations, the truth is not an extreme or a binary. So, I disagree, when an argument isn't moderate, it's a safe bet it's not true.

 

[Nuctech777]

It wasn't an insult. It was comparing and aligning someone's statement with the stereotype of a group that has vastly altered how conversation happens in our culture by being binary and extreme too often. Which is different than using
millennial as an insult. If you cared about being accurate and moderate instead of trying to come up with a clever zinger, you'd have caught the nuance. But because you clearly have a propensity for insults over civilized discussion, you projected that on to me.

Keep fighting the good fight sir.

Also, did you just assume my propensities?

 

[Orange_Crush]

99.9999% of the time, especially in super complex situations, the truth is not an extreme or a binary. So, I disagree, when an argument isn't moderate, it's a safe bet it's not true.

The Jews absolutely, positively didn't deserved the Nazi gas chambers.

You'd lose the bet on that one.

What's interesting is that your argument per the trustworthiness of moderate and circumspect arguments is neither moderate, nor circumspect.

Critical thinking would demand a bit more in ascertaining truth that shortcuts like this.

 

[Nuctech777]

The Jews absolutely, positively didn't deserved the Nazi gas chambers.

You'd lose the bet on that one.

What's interesting is that your argument per the trustworthiness of moderate and circumspect arguments is neither moderate, nor circumspect.

Critical thinking would demand a bit more in ascertaining truth that shortcuts like this.

 

[Devo182]

Just read “Empire of Pain” about the Sackler family and they legitimately do not have souls. Pharmaceutical advertising should be made illegal ASAP.

The show about them was fantastic.

As was the show Dope Sick

 

[jave36]

The Jews absolutely, positively didn't deserved the Nazi gas chambers.

You'd lose the bet on that one.

What's interesting is that your argument per the trustworthiness of moderate and circumspect arguments is neither moderate, nor circumspect.

Critical thinking would demand a bit more in ascertaining truth that shortcuts like this.

Your example is an exception that proves the rule. And when you pose a binary question, then the answer must necessarily be binary.

And your counter is basically "you can't say people shouldn't operate in absolutes because that statement is an absolute." If we can't agree to stay off that avenue of overly simplistic, abysmal logic, there's no point in discussing complex ideas.

 

[SSVol]

The Jews absolutely, positively didn't deserved the Nazi gas chambers.

You'd lose the bet on that one.

What's interesting is that your argument per the trustworthiness of moderate and circumspect arguments is neither moderate, nor circumspect.

Critical thinking would demand a bit more in ascertaining truth that shortcuts like this.

There are no absolutes, which is in itself an absolute. Although I guess he left an out with the 0.0001%...

 

[knoxvol52]

Joe, I'm not a millenial.

All situations have nuance. My org post was in reply to people who state no wrong doing after countless died.

It was about knowingly, and braggingly providing access to people who are addicted, causing new addictions, and profiting off of that. A death is a death, and therefore were a victim of such.

Some could have lived had they been given access to recovery. Dont be so binary, whatever the hell that means.

I apologize to you didn't mean for it to turn into this!!!!!!

 

[Jackcrevol]

I apologize to you didn't mean for it to turn into this!!!!!!

ah, no worries.

 

[gainesvol82]

Chris and Jeff George: Where Are the Drug Kingpins Now?

If you were around 18 in 1998. . . from '98 to about 2014 I think, you're lucky to be alive. Wasn't even younger people either. It was every type of person getting hooked, teachers, housewives, lawyers, doctors, nurses, cops etc. Ruined a lot of lives, some are still ruined and a lot are dead.

You'd probably like that show with Michael Keaton. . . Dopesick I think it's called.

Very good show and very realistic. Keaton's character was inspired by a real doctor from East TN who does addiction counseling now.

My FIL had thousands of the Oxycontin 80's in sealed bottles in his gun safe when I first met my now wife. Very tempting for 2 teenagers.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Your example is an exception that proves the rule. And when you pose a binary question, then the answer must necessarily be binary.

And your counter is basically "you can't say people shouldn't operate in absolutes because that statement is an absolute." If we can't agree to stay off that avenue of overly simplistic, abysmal logic, there's no point in discussing complex ideas.

Exceptions don't prove rules. They undermine them. That's another commonly accepted bit of anti-logic.

No. My counter was that your argument breaks its own rule. The funny thing is that your rule is overly simplistic, abysmal logic.

The lesson would be to attack an argument on its own merits, as opposed to relying on some unfounded rule of thumb to discredit it. If @Jackcrevol's argument was untrue, then argue a valid reason why. Like the fact that each supposed "victim" made a choice to snort the drug. He could counter the chemical effects on human brain receptors. You two could have a nuanced discussion on the philosophy of human volition in the argument of drug addictions, and the actions of drug dealers to increase revenue and foster addiction.

Now, that would be a far more interesting and truth-seeking debate than the binary, non-circumspect, non-moderate logical short-cut argument that only moderate and circumspect arguments are to be trusted. You'd probably actually find that @Jackcrevol offered a fairly moderate and nuanced perspective. Quite often, drug addict deaths are culpable for their actions while also being victims of the drug trade.

My nephew died of a heroin overdose. He was culpable for taking the drugs. But the dealers had been lacing the product with (cheaper and much stronger) fentinol to varying degrees to increase profits and worsen addiction, much like the tobacco companies had been doing throughout their histories. My nephew got a batch of heroin with far too much fentinol in it, and it turned him purple and swelled his brain until they turned the life support off.

He was culpable for shooting it. He was also a victim of a horrible and seedy industry that's willing to kill people for profit.

 

[allvolrecruiting]

Not giving up hope yet, still wanna bang.

Trying to bang thru here is an interesting choice. Alternative routes include getting married

 

[volbeast33]

Trying to bang thru here is an interesting choice. Alternative routes include getting married

You definitely don’t bang after getting married unless it is your birthday or special holiday(that you remember)

 

[Jackcrevol]

Exceptions don't prove rules. They undermine them. That's another commonly accepted bit of anti-logic.

No. My counter was that your argument breaks its own rule. The funny thing is that your rule is overly simplistic, abysmal logic.

The lesson would be to attack an argument on its own merits, as opposed to relying on some unfounded rule of thumb to discredit it. If @Jackcrevol's argument was untrue, then argue a valid reason why. Like the fact that each supposed "victim" made a choice to snort the drug. He could counter the chemical effects on human brain receptors. You two could have a nuanced discussion on the philosophy of human volition in the argument of drug addictions, and the actions of drug dealers to increase revenue and foster addiction.

Now, that would be a far more interesting and truth-seeking debate than the binary, non-circumspect, non-moderate logical short-cut argument that only moderate and circumspect arguments are to be trusted. You'd probably actually find that @Jackcrevol offered a fairly moderate and nuanced perspective. Quite often, drug addict deaths are culpable for their actions while also being victims of the drug trade.

My nephew died of a heroin overdose. He was culpable for taking the drugs. But the dealers had been lacing the product with (cheaper and much stronger) fentinol to varying degrees to increase profits and worsen addiction, much like the tobacco companies had been doing throughout their histories. My nephew got a batch of heroin with far too much fentinol in it, and it turned him purple and swelled his brain until they turned the life support off.

He was culpable for shooting it. He was also a victim of a horrible and seedy industry that's willing to kill people for profit.

There is an intent to cause harm, unintentionally, with knowledge - even joking about - said harm.

The brothers were spoiled rich boys with zero morality. If they hadnt been so evil, I would have felt sympathetic to their ignorance. But they knew, often joked of others stupdity. One was even a white supremacist. Lived a life of excess predicated on predation on others weaknesses.

Judgement will come.

 

[Jackcrevol]

You definitely don’t bang after getting married unless it is your birthday or special holiday(that you remember)

 

[Orange_Crush]

There is an intent to cause harm, unintentionally, with knowledge - even joking about - said harm.

The brothers were spoiled rich boys with zero morality. If they hadnt been so evil, I would have felt sympathetic to their ignorance. But they knew, often joked of others stupdity. One was even a white supremacist. Lived a life of excess predicated on predation on others weaknesses.

Judgement will come.

I'm not familiar with the story, either side of it, so I don't know. If I researched the story, I may even agree with @jave36. I just disagree with how he's defending his position. It's kind of like a kid that answers 5 on a math test, and the question was "What is 25 divided by 5?" Well, he got the right answer, but he doesn't know multiplication. He just counted the number of digits on his right hand and wrote the number down.

I was just pointing out a particularly poor way of assigning truth. I did so because I think it's becoming a more prevalent way of thinking. Instead of teaching people critical thinking these days, people are being taught to prefer the middle ground, "moderate", risk-less answers. Well, let's look for truth where truth can be found, no matter how extreme and risky it may be. No matter how it may offend or not.

 

[Jackcrevol]

I'm not familiar with the story, either side of it, so I don't know. If I researched the story, I may even agree with @jave36. I just disagree with how he's defending his position. It's kind of like a kid that answers 5 on a math test, and the question was "What is 25 divided by 5?" Well, he got the right answer, but he doesn't know multiplication. He just counted the number of digits on his right hand and wrote the number down.

I was just pointing out a particularly poor way of assigning truth. I did so because I think it's becoming a more prevalent way of thinking. Instead of teaching people critical thinking these days, people are being taught to prefer the middle ground, "moderate", risk-less answers. Well, let's look for truth where truth can be found, no matter how extreme and risky it may be. No matter how it may offend or not.

I think moderation is a great place to live, in a core set of beliefs. Why do I need ti be drug/dragged farther out to sea? There'a plenty of knowledge here in this bay, for my WV.

 

[bigl3327]

You definitely don’t bang after getting married unless it is your birthday or special holiday(that you remember)

Been married 26 years, so sometimes not even then. ‍

 

[SweetasSoda]

Been married 26 years, so sometimes not even then. ‍

Y’all need to really think about why. You’re doing something wrong. Married 37 years so I know what I am talking about. Or y’all are just seriously exaggerating.

 

[Devo182]

I'm not familiar with the story, either side of it, so I don't know. If I researched the story, I may even agree with @jave36. I just disagree with how he's defending his position. It's kind of like a kid that answers 5 on a math test, and the question was "What is 25 divided by 5?" Well, he got the right answer, but he doesn't know multiplication. He just counted the number of digits on his right hand and wrote the number down.

I was just pointing out a particularly poor way of assigning truth. I did so because I think it's becoming a more prevalent way of thinking. Instead of teaching people critical thinking these days, people are being taught to prefer the middle ground, "moderate", risk-less answers. Well, let's look for truth where truth can be found, no matter how extreme and risky it may be. No matter how it may offend or not.

Risky behavior. Or used to be. This place has eased up imo.

I’ve always thought we need a colored font when you’re merely disagreeing with the logic, not necessarily the conclusion itself. Years ago you could say “I love 4-wide sets, all on out routes” and in would come, “Nazi supporter!!”