- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
What decisions can we not make that we should?
You were saying "We...make mostly our own decisions as a nation" which means we don't make them all. How about Article 13 that killed fair dealing exceptions to copyright law.
Where does it state they can only “slightly modify”?
That is what it means to make an amendment.
But each and everyone is elected going on their record of service in individual countries so what’s the problem?
What do you mean? The problem is that they aren't elected by the citizens, like any regular democratic office.
You seem to have a very negative attitude to absolutely everything regarding the EU
This was all regarding one point... democracy and accountability. I like the idea of good trade links, I'm simply not willing to forgo democracy for them.
British papers that disparage the “unelected” Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead Brexit negotiator, would struggle to find a country that has an elected trade representative.
He doesn't write laws, that is the chief distinction. Once again, the EU commission is equivalent to the house of commons in our system.
Well that’s something you no longer have as a problem then (regarding the commission's independence from the citizens)
How so? Would you be fine with not electing the house of commons?
the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to pass.
Exactly, so we cannot elect someone to propose legislation, unlike in the UK parliament. We can merely elect the people who amend or approve the legislation (like the house of lords in the UK).
But we as a nation still have out national identity and everything that goes with that including neutrality
This appears to concede the point that the EU is moving toward statehood.
The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission.
It won't ever happen, a 2/3 majority is too difficult to attain and once again accountability to other politicians is not accountability to the people.
Every year, the Parliament chooses to give (or not) its blessing to the European Commission on the way it has managed the EU budget. This process is called the discharge.
This is still aside from my point. The commission are not accountable to the people, which is a fundamental part of democracy.
Ok I will leave it there as it’s merely opinions now and it’s obviously going nowhere as we are poles apart .
Nothing I said in those 3 paragraphs is opinion, except perhaps the phrasing "would never pass" regarding censure could be changed to "is extremely unlikely to pass". In any case, thank you it's always a pleasure to debate those that disagree respectfully.
Sally Haslanger has argued that we should understand gender as a social class...they occupy a certain sort of position in society because of how they are perceived and how this causes them to be treated.
What's the benefit to this?
Every part of someone causes them to be treated slightly differently by different people. Funnily enough, I treat masculine women more similarly to how I treat men and feminine men more similarly to how I treat women. Sometimes our treatment of others is inappropriate, but that needs to be negotiated on a one-to-one basis.
Should we have a quota for women in bricklaying or for men in nursing? To expect equality of outcome in any field is to lack an understanding of the biological differences between men and women. While many differences exist, one that is particularly important to job choice is the fact that, in general, males are more thing-oriented and women are more person-oriented (1). Further, this difference is biological, not social, in nature (2).
To deal with women in parliament specifically, a feminist study suggests only 40% of women want senior leadership positions, opposed to 56% of men (3). Further, studies suggest that women value power less than men do and have lower level ideal positions (4). Men are also more likely to apply for positions they felt were above their qualifications and ability than females (5). It should be easy to see how this ties into holding political office: after all, running the country is no doubt something nobody is fully qualified for. Since confidence is linked to testosterone levels (6) this means that there are several concrete biological reasons that more men are in parliament than women.
I like Jordan Peterson's idea: when the left pushes for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity and equality under the law. Personally, I'd also say that the left has gone too far when it starts viewing everyone in terms of their identity groups, rather than as individuals.
But we are self governing and make mostly our own decisions as a nation
Mostly being the important word here.
the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments
Which means they can slightly modify the legislation proposed by the commission. It would be like if in our democracy if we elected the house of lords but not the house of commons.
EU commissioners on the other hand are proposed by national governments and selected by the president of the European Commission.
Exactly, not elected by the people.
New legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the member states and passed by the European Parliament
Which means that the European public could vote in MEPs that all agreed on a certain issue, and we would still have to simply hope that the commission agreed too.
So it's misleading to say unelected bureaucrats make decisions in the EU.
They make the decisions that matter the most.
The 28 European commissioners are meant to carry out their responsibilities independently of their national governments. In that sense, they are similar to British civil servants - politically impartial and independent of the government.
They are also independent of the citizens, which is my problem.
Proposed by National governments
Actually, the council merely gives priorities, the commission decides what laws are proposed.
I don’t buy that (regarding the EU becoming a federal superstate)
The EU has a central bank, it's own currency, levies taxes indirectly, has it's own national anthem, is calling for the creation of an EU army, holds elections and has a parliament, has it's own laws etc. In what way is the EU not on it's way to statehood?
1. Personal accountability
This has nothing to do with accountability to the people. To explain, our politicians are accountable to the people because they rely on us for election and reelection. The EU commission is not.
If Parliament adopts a motion of censure against the Commission, all of its members are required to resign, including the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as far as his or her duties in the Commission are concerned.
This means at best that the commission has a small amount of accountability to the EU parliament (and not to the people). Moreover, a motion of censure would never pass because it means getting rid of all commissioners and requires a 2/3 majority.
Also there are further issues with the "democracy" of the EU, such as the fact that citizens of larger states (such as those in the UK) have less say. This is because British MEPs represent more people than those in smaller states, yet have the same voting power. In fact, citizens of the smallest states (Malta and Luxembourg) have ten times the voting power of those in the largest states.
Furthermore, and this is a separate issue in regards to the size of any democracy; one can be better represented in smaller democracies. In other words, one has more of a say in a democracy of 100 than 1000. This is because one makes up a larger percentage of the population.
Yes, but in practice minarchism is preferable to anarchism because the latter is inclined toward mob rule and/or rule by the strong. To decrease the roles of government slowly until it merely protects people's rights would be the best path forward on this front.
To have no state is potentially possible with a hyper-intelligent, conscientious, armed and moral citizenry, but first we would need to create such a citizenry.
Off course we are what do you base this statement on?
The fact that EU member states are beneath ECJ jurisdiction and EU law supercedes national law.
We pick and choose by voting and holding referendums debates etc
We don't elect the EU commission, who are the ones that propose laws. The EU parliament only votes on these proposals, it cannot propose laws itself.
That’s something I’m not sure about as I’m sure elected people have proposed legislative changes
Not in the EU, the ones with the power to write laws are solely the commission.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating I’ve nothing to complain about regarding the country I live in and it’s application of democratic principles
The EU has not yet fully become the federal superstate that it is on the path to becoming.
I pay 1 per cent tax as I’m an artist making me tax exempt mostly , I’ve free medical , entitlement to a state pension, free bus and rail travel and many other perks .
Those things come from your national and local government.
If this form of democracy is abuse I’m all for it
You misunderstand my point, you should re-read it. I never said anything about "this...democracy (being) abuse". To illustrate the point let me ask you this; why do you think democratic governments treat their citizens better than dictatorships? It's because they are accountable to the citizens. The EU commission is not accountable to it's citizens.
If she were to spring into existence, however, she would presumably be better off not blinking back out of existence.
So we agree that existence is better than non-existence. When the thing no longer exists it cannot value it's existence, yet regardless we can see that one state is better than the other.
I would object actually. Once the sun has mass, it is not hypothetical anymore.
Obviously I mean adding hypothetical mass...
But we cannot compare the value of a non-existent condition to an existent one. Not in that direction I mean.
Why not? If there was a hypothetical reality where nothing existed surely we could say that if things exited (and the potential for consciousness existed) it would be better?
I’ll explain the difference in what I mean by “subjective” as opposed to “relative”
I already get this point, truly. My point is that a universe without consciousness is categorically worse than one with it. If nothing has any significance (or the potential for future significance) then reality may as well not exist.
I agree that there are objectively better and worse states for subjective beings.
What about the case of consciousness existing or not?
In that case, whether or it is better to be conscious would depend on whether or not the living non-conscious things would actually do better with consciousness.
Yet everything may as well not exist without consciousness. If I wasn't conscious I could live a perfect life and none of it would matter.
Saying that something “may well not exist” it’s a value statement. It’s like saying “If they don’t case X actor, they may as well not make the movie”. You would prefer the movie include X actor.
That's not at all the case. Only when consciousness is involved can there be meaning, significance, purpose, only with consciousness can events matter. If everything that exists is utterly insignificant, devoid of meaning and mattering then it genuinely may as well not exist. Particles move toward and away from each other and at times collide but none of it matters. If you were creating a universe which would you choose? A universe where nothing had any relevance, meaning or significance, or a universe where there were entities that had a quality that gave your universe significance, meaning and relevance?
I don’t lose that fact. It is the point of our contention whether it actually is a fact.
I think I've outlined quite clearly why a universe with consciousness is better than one without it.
When you say a thing is valuable, I will ask “to whom?”....To say that a thing is of value to literally no one, is to say that a thing is not valuable. This is the crux of our impasse.
Yet if we were to create the universe without consciousness we could surely say that it was inferior to the universe with consciousness? As far as I see we don't need to say it's worse relative to any entity, it's simply worse. Things can also be better or worse relative to a purpose, for example a bucket with holes is worse for the purpose of holding water than one without holes.
Yes, for you. But only because you exist and can value such states.
I don't really see how nothing existing could be successfully argued to be a better state.
What do you suppose would be the "sensible" way for criminals to react to that?
To not commit crimes.
There are specialist armed units
That's exactly my point. You need guns to stop the people with guns.
Which you have forced the criminal to carry
Do I force criminals to carry boltcutters when I chain my bike to a fence too?
No I honestly couldn’t as how could one favorably compare a dominating occupying force ruling one country as similar to being a member of the EU?
Because in both cases you are not self-governing.
I’m trying to figure out how would such a move benefit the country?
I think the biggest benefit is being ruled democratically. The E.U. is not democratic because we cannot elect the people who actually propose legislation. They are not accountable to the people. Accountability is the main thing that makes democracy better than other systems of governance. It is the primary reason why our rulers don't abuse the people, or at least why they don't abuse us as much as the rulers of old.
Clearly it is possible. Dozens of countries have banned guns. You are just being stupid.
How so when there are still guns in those countries?
That is you trying to compare two different things and pretend they are the same. Having the right to smoke weed isn't the same as having the right to shoot other people and neither are they viewed the same way by any intelligent member of society.
First of all, my point was that you can never get rid of something entirely by criminalizing it. Secondly, the ability to defend oneself is arguably more important than the ability to smoke weed. Thirdly, nobody in any country has the right to just shoot other people.
Your links are ornamental, so I'm not even going to bother acknowledging you have posted them. They do not support anything you have written.
They suggest that guns can be used to prevent crime, not just cause it, and in fact that they are used far more for the former than the latter.
Because common sense stipulates that criminals do not want to be shot by police.
If we as a society want police to stop criminals and not the other way round then it doesn't make sense to argue that criminals need guns to defend themselves from police.
The UK police force arrests plenty of criminals and it does not carry guns.
Actually, UK police do carry guns, just not all officers at all times.
you are implying that without guns police are unable to stop criminals.
They are unable to stop criminals with guns that refuse to surrender.
Criminals are more than happy to comply with gun laws when failure to do so gives them more prison time than the actual offence they are guilty of committing.
So are there are no criminals with guns in the UK?
Anything another race feels is degrading TO THEM is racist! They have the right to CHOOSE what makes them feel "slapped", and we should respect that!... Is the name "Redskins" racist? If the Indians feel it is, IT IS!
Does this mean that absolutely everything can be racist just because someone decides it to be?
It shouldn't be someone's "right" to walk all over another's "rights".
Nobody is saying anybody doesn't have "the right to CHOOSE what makes them feel "slapped"". If anybody wanted to make feeling something illegal I would be the first to argue against it.
But how would the Republic benifit as a small nation isolated from the E U?
Couldn't you have asked the same question in the past changing "E.U." for "U.K."? Self-determination and independence are valuable and, in my estimation, the Irish deeply value them (at least in theory).
Equally, if one uses that as justification for police owning firearms it leads to an infinite regression where eventually every criminal must have a firearm to protect themselves from the police.
How so? Do we as a society want criminals to stop police or do we want police to stop criminals?
Hence, it is a considerably more reasonable plan for police to work to disarm criminals rather than arm themselves (or civilians).
How are you going to do that, given that criminals by definition won't follow a law that makes guns illegal? Has the war on drugs been successful?
But this now becomes irrelevant since you have agreed with his point that tasers have the same effect. Hence, there is nothing gained by using guns. You just add extra risk for little extra benefit.
Only in the case that the person you are arresting has no weapon, and is within the shorter taser range. Also, the person would be somewhat less afraid of a taser than a gun. However, I can concede that in cases where the person is unarmed it's an acceptable substitute.
Then obviously the logical solution is to remove guns from society, not to proliferate them. Amazing that you seemingly cannot see that.
Not possible, see my earlier point on the war on drugs. Even if it was, you completely ignore the fact that studies suggest 2 million defensive gun uses by civilians alone per year (1,2) compared with 19k homicides and 500 accidental discharges (3).
(1) https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf
No. I exist, so I have preferences. If I never existed, I wouldn’t have a preference. Hypothetical people aren’t concerned with their hypothetical nature.
So can we not say that a hypothetical person is better off existing than not existing? Hypothetical suns do not have mass, however we can state that a hypothetical sun would have more mass if we added more material to it. I don't believe you would object and say "if the sun is hypothetical then it has no mass". Why then can we not compare hypothetical consciousnesses?
We can. Hypothetical states can’t.
So we can state that a universe with consciousness is better than one without it? To me it feels like you're making a case analogous to "we can't ever achieve objectivity so everything is subjective" but in regards to preferable states. Just because we are subjective beings does not mean that objectively better states don't exist. Moreover, I believe my idea of a hypothetical universe without consciousness demonstrates this.
This appears to be founded on preference rather than reason.
If something may as well not exist what is the practical difference between that and not existing?
States are better and worse for someone/something.
I appreciate that things (other than consciousness) only matter through interaction with consciousness which seems to be the point you keep making (that I don't disagree with). However, when you define "better and worse" this way you lose the fact that a universe that lacks consciousness is worse than one that has it. We don't need to point to someone to make this claim and, in fact, there is no one in the case of the former.
If there were no things in existence for which anything mattered, it wouldn’t matter.
Nothing would matter, which I would argue is a worse state.
Existence takes primacy over value. First exist, then value. Non-existence can’t value.
Yet surely you can see that it's better to exist than not to exist? Is something or nothing better?
What will the police do when faced with a criminal with a gun?
In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed, the mere threat of it's use has been enough to bring violent or potentially violent situations to a safe and peaceful resolution.
The same is true for guns.
Giving police officers guns sends the wrong message to the community, such as people need to use guns in order to be safe and to protect themselves.
You do need guns to defend against guns.
the plant that doesn’t exist is not worse off, it’s not anything at all.
Does this not mean that you can't say that being alive is better than being dead?
Only from the position of existence. A reality where things matter is what we have. The reality in which nothing matters doesn’t exist, but that’s not a worse off realitybecause it simply isn’t in existence.(...) My position is that this is only the case because existence is the case. The hypothetical universe wherein there is nothing, doesn’t actually exist.
So can we not compare hypothetical states?
Since it is fundamental, it necessarily is the case.
The reason I believe consciousness to be fundamental to the universe is because a place where nothing has any significance may as well not exist. This is why I think the ability to make significance is transcendentally significant.
Given existence is the case, it is preferable to non-existence.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are better and worse states? Moreover, existence is better than non-existence?
I voted to leave, the EU is becoming a federal superstate and the laws are written by an unelected commission. Sure, we elect the EU parliament, but they cannot write laws, they can only vote on the laws created by the unelected commission. In other words when people claim they want to reform the EU they are actually saying "we will hope that the EU reforms itself". This is because we have no power to elect people that can actually propose legislation.
From my current perspective of existing, yeah that’s worse. But had I never existed, I can’t say I would care.
Existing is better than not existing regardless of whether you are capable of caring about it though. So does this not show that there's something missed in your conceptualization of better and worse states?
On a macro scale, if nothing ever perceived this universe because perceiving entities never existed, it wouldn’t matter.
Nothing at all would matter, and surely a reality where things can matter is better than one where things cannot?
By my view, reality is only in a better or worse state from a given perspective... Nonexistence is only a worse condition from the perspective of existence.
So, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you didn't exist tomorrow that wouldn't be a worse state for you because you wouldn't exist to be able to perceive that things were worse?
There is some degree of pretending to be the hero as escapism but I think it's deeper than that. Dr. Peterson would say that while people are watching these hero stories they are trying to learn how to become heroes themselves. They admire the archetypal hero's struggle and watch it as a target for emulation.
I think the root of our disagreement here is the concept of "transcendental mattering" and so I'll try to explain what I mean. There are better and worse states. Since there are better and worse states we can say that some things transcendentally matter because they can create better or worse states. This is the point that I tried to make with consciousness not existing; if consciousness didn't exist then reality is in a worse state. If nothing is important to anything then everything may as well not exist or act.
It's hard because most people don't even pay attention to these things. Or if they do they often just read the headlines "Oh reduce harmful content online? I don't like harm!".
If the government starts deciding what is and isn't true it's on a level with Chinese internet censorship.
Thanks for the well-thought answer, I mostly agree with your sentiments on this issue and you raised some things I hadn't thought about.
Essentially, the more a society invests in treating the symptoms of a genetic issue, the more significant that issue becomes, costing further resources to treat the issue with each passing generation.
This could definitely cause major problems in 100+ years time.
I imagine this will continue until we either adopt a rather evil policy of active genetic curation or learn to use gene editing tools to treat the cause rather than the symptom.
Personally, I think we should to remove some (only some) of the barriers to dying that we've erected for the long term benefit. Now, what those would be in practice I'm not entirely sure and this could be dangerous territory to tread if done without a great deal of thought.
good mutations thrive more often too. evolution is based on chance, so it is also likely that a beneficial mutation dies out too in a harsher environment.
Good point, especially savant genius types that might not survive in nature.
These days subsistence is typically a given, so there's more emphasis on attracting a mate
One thing about this is that all females can find a mate and have their children supported by the state. So this selective pressure only exists on males (who carry the same genetic information as females).
A more constant trait as an example of this would be intelligence, as this is generally a consistent indicator of success.
I agree, except that it appears that this may not be the case due to a possible inverse relationship between fertility and IQ (Source 1).
intelligence may also have links with depression, so from a QOL standpoint this could be very bad
Good point, it could counter intuitively be bad. I think that having more intelligent people should in theory cause the overall QoL to increase though due to their work to make things better. But at the same time it's usually the less intelligent people that are the life of the party.
By this reasoning we're technically selecting for everything from agility for dancers to dick/breast/arse size for porn stars to actions per minute for Star Craft loving Koreans. Are any of these things better?
I get your point but in those cases I'd say that fertility (breast and arse size are related to this) and intelligence (related to APM in Star Craft) are good traits to select for.
The two parties are steered by private interests through campaign financing and through sneaky payoffs to the politicians. Extortionate fees for private speaking arrangements and incredibly well paid easy jobs after their terms are among the legal bribes they receive. I think this is at the root of the issue we are having with our western democracies.
Infinite number of universes means that all possibilities occur. Therefore in some universes someone made a simulation that is convincingly real and people are unwittingly part of it, however such instances would be rare.
Consider that there would need to be a strong motive for imprisoning unwitting people in a simulation given the costs of such an endeavor. Moreover, it is not clear that scientifically advanced races from another completely different universe would even want to create simulation technology in the first place; we are assuming that they would be like humans. This also applies to many other parts of the chain of events and development that has led us to create the simulations that we are capable of.
The media has neither a liberal bias not a left wing bias. Quite the opposite.
To me it seems that more outlets lean left than right. Now, right and left are technically subjective, however your own source states that 7% of journalists identify as right wing and 43% as left wing.
I would describe Fox itself as alternative media.
Doesn't that mean that all mainstream media leans left?
The Myth of the Liberal Media...
I certainly agree that the media is not at all liberal, however liberal does not equate to left wing. I'd say there is a pro corporate and pro establishment bias. When Americans say liberal they mean left wing, and those instances of falsehoods highlighted here do support left wing narratives.
The idea of a “liberal media” is, in fact, a myth, one that has enabled the rise of a right-wing media infrastructure that helped to sow doubts and misinformation during the last election.
Do you mean alternative media or FOX? They've both been around for a long time...
Single parenthood is caused primarily by culture.
Do you include the lack of incentive to not be a single parent (through benefits) in culture? I think that's a big factor.
The large majority of criminals grew up fatherless. Fatherlessness is associated with a host of mental health and other issues as well.
I agree and I'd add that genetic factors are likely a co-variable here too. Criminals and the mentally ill are more likely to not raise their children and criminality and mental illness are in part genetically determined.
...Thus, it is not their poverty, but their culture which lead to criminality.
I agree mostly, however this misses the link between low IQ and poverty and low IQ and criminality. If you're low IQ you're more likely to believe you can get away with crime and also you have very few options to attain wealth and status. Thus crime seems to them as a risky option to get wealth (and thereby gain status) to lower IQ people. Also low IQ is related back to diet which is related back to poverty.
culture lies at the root of a complex situation.
I agree that it's a major piece of the puzzle but I'm not sure about the root cause. In poor neighborhoods vicarious learning takes place. When the people similar to you that are rich and have status (in the area) are all criminals it creates the perception that criminality is how people like you can attain status and money. So part of why the culture emerged in the first place would be this phenomenon of vicarious learning. If we do identify the primary concern as culture, though, what can be done to change it?
Oh it definitely goes both ways, and there are many mediating factors too. It's all deeply inter-related in a downward spiral. For example, diet impacts massively on intelligence which impacts on poverty which impacts on diet again. Lower intelligence is related to more criminality and poverty simultaneously and both crime and poverty are related to single parenthood which is related back to poverty and crime (for the child) etc. I think all the above are related to each other in both directions and through co-variables too, you?
American Blacks on average commit more crime (Source 1), and these numbers come from the proportion of offenders identified by victims as black (so it can't be due to police racism). To quote my source: "The proportion of black suspects arrested by the police tends to match closely the proportion of offenders identified as black by victims in the National Crime Victimization Survey." As such, any argument that police arrest more blacks because of racism falls on it's face.
Note, I believe that the reason that black people commit more crime on average than other races is because of poverty, single parenthood and culture, not due to an inherent racial drive towards crime.
Honestly? Probably not. I can't hunt and while I could forage and plant crops I don't think I could get enough protein.
Though I guess if there are still existing farms I could probably take one over and read books to learn animal husbandry. Or better yet, raid a supermarket for long-life food for the first few years while I figured things out.
I agree 100% with the first two paragraphs and it captures the nuance of the question well, however when you get to:
The least common type of immigrant would fit the concern expressed here. Immigrants who found some advantage in their authoritarian origin and seek to bring such with them.
I find disagreement. To begin, I'd like to state that when I say more authoritarian regimes I don't mean just the most extreme examples (who generally won't let people leave anyway). Arguably every country is more authoritarian than the U.S., for example my country the U.K. doesn't have freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. Moreover, most of the people here don't even want these freedoms (except hunting shotguns, which are not to be used for self-defense and certainly not defense of property). In fact, the position of our Overton window means that to advocate for more gun rights is to be labelled a fringe crackpot.
However, to illustrate better we can use more apt examples where people would migrate for economic reasons, such as Muslim majority countries that make homosexuality illegal. Another example would be post-communist eastern European countries who seem to hold that democracy means tyranny of the majority (and who often espouse racial superiority and anti-LGBT views and laws). Hungary and Poland are good examples of this.
In my estimation most migrants are driven to migrate by a desire for safety (which lends itself to authoritarianism by the way) or by economic benefit. The majority are not motivated by a deep understanding and love for liberal values. They may want the result (prosperity and safety) but generally speaking they don't understand how the result was achieved (liberalism).
Yes people should have the right to do as they wish with their own body. That said, for example in the case of abortion (particularly late term) it is not clear that it is merely their own body. A woman that is pregnant with a baby boy does not have twenty fingers and a penis. Moreover, that baby is independently conscious and alive and thus to abort it is to infringe upon the child's right to it's own body. This said, I do support abortion rights up to around 3-4 months.
As for drug legalization and large sodas, it makes sense to allow people to harm themselves as long as they do not harm others. If their drug use leads them to harm others, then this can be pursued as a separate crime.
Experimental cancer treatments and herbal supplements are acceptable as long as no fraudulent claims are made and all the risks and side effects are made apparent to the user.
As for assisted suicide, there would need to be safeguards against abuse; "They wanted me to kill them, honest!" However in principle I have no objection to people making the decision to end their own life when in irredeemable circumstances. Of course, attempts to talk them out of it should be made if/when the person's situation can improve.
Having a break for about 2 weeks (first time this past year or so I've had free time) so I'll be around for a little bit. Just finished reading your reply on our discussion about consciousness and significance and you made some good points that I agree with. There are also some Socratic questions I wanted to ask and things I disagree with but perhaps a year gap in a discussion is a bit much.
I see that this place hasn't changed much XD