[timschmidt]

>> And don't say "because it's misuse" - that would be circular.

> Well that's the meaning of misuse

> I do think homosexuality is bad and unnatural. (No don't tell me it occurs in animals, any behaviour occurs in animals.)

Well, friend, that's the meaning of natural. "Found in nature"

Playing word games with one will get you called out in the same way on the other, regardless of your cognitive dissonance on the subject.

[1718627440]

I do not now the meaning of something where badness != misuse.

> Well, friend, that's the meaning of natural. "Found in nature"

That's one meaning of nature. Other meanings are the nature of X, as in what is an intrinsic motivation or purpose, and natural law, but I guess you don't recognize that as valid concept.

Would you agree to "Killing others is natural"? You wouldn't expect "natural" to have the first meaning there either.

A lot of disagreements boil down to a different usage of a word, so "word games" are not fruitless in a discussion.

If it is important, then I would define misuse of a drug by motivation (high or low) and by application (whether the dose fits the motivation). misuse = low || dose != motivation; And I would say that this is bad, because low motivation doesn't satisfy the harm any drugs causes and a wrong does doesn't achieve the intended outcome.

[immibis]

None of this has any logical consistency, sorry. You weren't able to provide a rational argument for why using drugs is bad - only a circular one (it's bad because it's misuse; it's misuse because it's bad). I've heard this "nature of" and "natural law" line of argument before and it's very similar: strict heterosexuality is the nature of things because you said so despite all actual evidence to the contrary. There's no science experiment you can do to prove that, and many you can do to prove it wrong, but natural law proponents still insist it's true because they said so. "Natural law" / "nature of" is a meaningless word game.

Killing others is natural. That's a factual statement.

"I would define misuse of a drug by motivation (high or low) and by application (whether the dose fits the motivation)" is indecipherable, and therefore devoid of semantic content. It seems the war on drugs has created a problem of nobody knowing the slightest thing about drugs.

[1718627440]

> None of this has any logical consistency, sorry.

Can you please counter any concrete logical step, instead of just dismissing it because you don't like it?

> You weren't able to provide a rational argument for why using drugs is bad - only a circular one

I stated that I consider misuse and badness to be that same thing, so no that was obviously not my argument. I told you what I consider to be the questions I would decide misuse on. Feel free to provide another definition.

> I've heard this "nature of" and "natural law" line of argument before and it's very similar

I don't expect you to agree with the philosophy of the scholastics, I only wanted to clarify my view.

> strict heterosexuality is the nature of things because you said

I think you again mistook "nature of a thing" to have a the meaning of everything the thing does do in nature. As such that would be an everything statement.

> "Natural law" / "nature of" is a meaningless word game.

No it's not. I don't accept you as the arbiter of philosophy, that just declares philosophy concepts to don't exist.

> There's no science experiment you can do to prove that, and many you can do to prove it wrong

The experiment is, do solely policy X in isolation with an isolated population. Do you like the outcome or not?

> [my definition] is indecipherable, and therefore devoid of semantic content.

Thanks. Can you please tell, what you don't understand, instead of declaring it to not have a semantic meaning?

> has created a problem of nobody knowing the slightest thing about drugs.

Could you please educate us on your mysterious knowledge about the nature of drugs? In case you somehow took that to be the case, I did not claim, that I consider any use of a drug to be misuse. I think I gave some examples in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45598978 .

[timschmidt]

> I think you again mistook "nature of a thing" to have a the meaning of everything the thing does do in nature.

Thanks for my daily laugh from the internet. For a while I thought you were serious. But this is comedic gold.

[1718627440]

I am serious. Maybe there is something lost in translation. My dictionary gives me:

   disposition <n>, nature <n>, nature <n> of a person,  nature <n> of a thing, temper <n>, mettle sb. is made of <n> [archaic], natural <adj>, quiddity <n>, particular nature <n> (of a matter), essence <n>, suchness <n>

The examples make me think, that English indeed does have this meaning of the word "nature", and it's only you who doesn't know this, but maybe you would prefer a different word?

[timschmidt]

It only gets funnier.

[timschmidt]

> I do not now the meaning of something where badness != misuse.

Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement.

> A lot of disagreements boil down to a different usage of a word

Here you are making the same case yourself.

> Would you agree to "Killing others is natural"?

Happens all the time in nature, including the last time you ate a hamburger or some beans or bread. Happens also in self-defense and territorial disputes.

We also observe predators and prey co-existing peacefully in nature at times. I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding. Further, it's one which can only be argued by someone who's connection to their food ends at the grocery store. Wild that some folks have forgotten what they are giving thanks for at mealtime.

You may not consider animals or plants to be "others", but then you've only given me additional reason to discount your moral judgement as incomplete, narcissistic, and even further disconnected from the nature you invoke as justification.

P.S. drug use is also observed in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima...

[1718627440]

> Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement.

The claim I stated that that started this thread was, that different definitions of badness are accompanied by different but respective definitions of misuse.

> Here you are making the same case yourself.

Yes? I used a word having some meaning in mind, you interpreted it with a different meaning, which obviously doesn't work. You pointed that out, so I pointed out, that that was not the meaning of the word I was using it for.

> I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding.

I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said.

> P.S. drug use is also observed in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima...

That's what I was answering to, with "Killing others is natural". This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Because animals (including humans) can do and do something, does not mean we want to cater to that as a society. In fact restricting things, that might not even be bad in isolation, is what separates civilization from the undomesticated.

[timschmidt]

> This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court.

Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a morally defensible argument in court.

> I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said.

Seeing as your argument was anticipated, and a suitable set of counterexamples was provided preemptively, I think not.

[1718627440]

> Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a moral argument in court.

"I (accidentally) killed him, while trying to protect me." is very different from "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick." When you need to have a serious threat to make you do something, then that thing is in fact not your nature.

> I think not.

I pointed out another example of that meaning of the word "nature" and you answered as if I made claims about morality of killing or slaughtering people/animals?

Sorry to me that felt very much like scope creep.

[timschmidt]

> I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said.

> "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick."

Physician, heal thyself.