The real division between me and the druggies - who can't see it because the concept that anything *they* do might be wrong is foreign to them - is this: I contend that it is morally wrong to stupefy yourself, and morally wrong to damage yourself or take a conscious risk of damaging yourself, with the aim of getting physical pleasure.
Dude, seriously? You do know that this applies to skiing, jogging, swimming, scuba diving, hang gliding, sky diving, knitting and macramé as well?
It's strange how someone who can construct so many intelligent arguments can also chuck something so banal and fatuous out there.
15 comments:
When it comes to the subject of drugs, all rationality goes out the window. It's almost impossible to have a rational conversation with someone on the subject. I had a recent discussion with an otherwise intelligent human being, where I argued that heroin, and all other drugs, should be legalized. I would have gotten a better reception if I told them that I'd been anally raping Madeline McCann in my basement for the last 2yrs!
The man chugs yak cock!!
Yup. Hitchens is usually pretty good but he's been reduced to raving nonsense since Nutt had the gall to state simple facts on the drugs debate.
The drugs issue is probably one of the clearest dividing lines between genuine libertarians and conservatives who might lean libertarian on the odd issue but remain essentially authoritarian.
Yet more proof that it's impossible to have a rational discussion on drugs nowadays. As soon as you bring it up, all the anti-drug activists start jumping around and yelling like they're on drugs.
Nutt's views are far from libertarian on the subject of alcohol, of course - don't for a minute glorify the guy as a hero of freedom.
Playing sports doesn't stupefy you.
Anonymong: "morally wrong to damage yourself or take a conscious risk of damaging yourself, with the aim of getting physical pleasure"
People never get hurt playing sports?
thanks for linking to that Obo, I don't usually read Hitchens but I'm used to seeing him quoted around the libertarian blogosphere. I'll take his words with more than a pinch of salt in future; I failed to see even a hint of a libertarian argument in the whole of that article.
Does he want us all to give up wanking and sex, then?!
Hahaha. He's a fathead eh?!
Another example of someone confusing their morals with some kind of social morality.
I think we can might agree that there are certain moral absolutes... pretty much summed up with the standard libertarian concept of doing whatever you want as long as that harms no one else. So obviously it's immoral to kill, rob or rape someone. Or is that too abstract?
The drugs one is a consistent fail. I think it might be disgust, we've all seen the shuffling zombies looking for spare change, so a mental picture grows that DRUGS ARE BAD. But I happen to absolutely love ecstacy, and have had run ins with most other drugs over the years (hash is crap, smack is too strong for my tastes, coke is good for the first wee while but makes you a bit of a cunt overall, mushrooms and acid makes me a bit mental, usually have out of body experiences so they aint for me). Is it my business if you take any or all of the above? Is it fuck. Unless you feel the urge to break into my house to pay for it.
So Hitchens wants a libertarian society as long as everyone is following the rules he wants. Which sounds sadly similar to the lefties who want us all to be the same. I wonder if this is an example of that daft internet quiz that puts you on a grid - that one that allows for left-libertarians? Or as the man said 'You're free to do what we tell you'
@sclumpf23, what we really want to know is what you did to her for the first year?
" and morally wrong to damage yourself or take a conscious risk of damaging yourself, with the aim of getting physical pleasure."
Is he talking about sex?
Cock!
I did recognise your point Obo.
I suppose there's even a chance of stupefying yourself playing sports: if you damage your brain in an accident.
However, playing sports can also help keep you healthy, although this is probably besides the point of what you're trying to say here.
Hitchens makes a point that I have often made in the past - if cannabis and other drugs were legalised, we would end up with far stricter controls on people who used it. Put bluntly, cannabis users would end up being banned from most responsible jobs.
Most places of work, especially where the job involved driving or control of intricate machinery, or any kind of crucial calculation of quantity, would be plagued with frequent tests which would have to be imposed on everyone without exception.
Be very careful what you wish for...
I contend that it is morally wrong to stupefy yourself, and morally wrong to damage yourself or take a conscious risk of damaging yourself, with the aim of getting physical pleasure.
********
I take it Hitchens doesn't drink or smoke either, then?
Post a Comment