4/20 plans

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's Friday, so I'm going to Philosophy Club and watching anime with my friends. I might also try to get some of an anthropology final paper sketched out later at night.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

That also makes objectivity impossible. Who has more experience with abstinence than virgins, or with not smoking than non-smokers? There's no 'objective' level of experience to have had. It all depends on what one frames as the positive assertion of a position that needs to be defended.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

That also makes objectivity impossible. Who has more experience with abstinence than virgins, or with not smoking than non-smokers? There's no 'objective' level of experience to have had. It all depends on what one frames as the positive assertion of a position that needs to be defended.

No, I disagree. Having sex or being high are very temporary conditions. Virginity and never having smoked are permanent, uninterrupted states. Despite the cultural stigmas, having achieved an altered mental state is not a permanent, constant state of being. It's just another experience. It's absurd to contest that the absence of experience is the basis of the most informed opinions.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't believe there is any level of experience that would tender objective opinions about these things using your definition. I also happen to think past experiences of any kind change the nature of future experiences, which, again, I'm not limiting to these particular issues. I can understand the value of experience if we are looking for maximally informed positions but I simply don't think unexperienced people's positions should be thought to be less objective, particularly if they ostensibly derive from first principles. (Deriving opinions on very specific issues from first principles can be suspect for other reasons, of course, but I don't believe that's especially relevant here.)

Would an ideal observer be infinitely experienced, and if so, is that simply necessary to achieve infinite understanding (which I am not convinced of, by the by) or is it itself intrinsically important?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Contrary to popular belief I don't get high a whole lot (I post about it a lot more than I actually do it), but I suspect the pot users mocking the anti-pot people comes from frustration at unfair demonization and the idiotic view of the law resulting in some backlash. I mean even ignoring the law you can't say that there aren't people who unfairly look down on pot users and see themselves as superior for not doing so, try reading any Naso post on the subject.

Certainly. It's incredibly stupid that cannabis is listed and treated the way it is, particularly considering what's going on in producing communities and producing countries. Users have actually a lot of privilege, relative to producers and (in some ways) traffickers, which is why I think of legalization as primarily an issue of economic marginalization.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I understand what you're saying, but the desire to not alter one's state of mind beyond necessity is also one that can be positively argued for; experience isn't really quite as relevant there, since it's the default state. I wouldn't trust an anti-drug activist's opinions on the specifics of altered states, certainly, or a virgin's hot sex tips.