How are you spending President's Day weekend

[don't let's]

Wow.

And you still asked all of those questions after making this statement?

In case I wasn't clear, it's a terrible point and it doesn't offend me, but I do find it to be simplistic and untrue.

How is it untrue?

And "what assumptions and lack of context was there? "

[Socks]

How is it untrue?

And "what assumptions and lack of context was there? "

It is untrue because the ultimate and absolute authority for deciding if one is being 'responsible' or not lies within the individual and cannot stem from anywhere else, certainly not the State! At the most, such an authority can be 'transferred' and only transferred to governing body, at which point such a body becomes 'empowered', but the right is never theirs. More so, what we deem as a 'responsibility' and the 'responsible thing to do' is fundamentally a matter of context and personal belief, therefore subjective and largely circumstantial. It is only when we chose to recognize and accept other institutions, entities, practices or ideologies that 'responsibility' starts to bear a shared and somewhat common meaning. But until then, and until such influences and factors are understood and accepted unanimously by all, you cannot make such generalizations about what is responsible and what is not, without leaving any other possibilities open. And this was not the case here, where you still talked as if all of us give a shit in the same way that you do.

[don't let's]

It is untrue because the ultimate and absolute authority for deciding if one is being 'responsible' or not lies within the individual and cannot stem from anywhere else. At the most, such an authority can only be 'transferred' to governing body, at which point it becomes 'empowered', but the right is never theirs. More so, what we deem as a 'responsibility' and the 'responsible thing to do' is fundamentally a matter of context and personal belief, therefore subjective. It is only when we chose to recognize other institutions, entities, practices or ideologies that 'responsibility' starts to bear a shared and somewhat common meaning. But until then, and until such influences and factors are understood and accepted unanimously by all, you cannot make such generalizations about what is responsible and what is not, without leaving any other possibilities open. And this was not the case here, where you still talked as if all of us give a shit in the same way that you do.

So to you responsibility and irresponsibility is more or less illusionary and they don't actual exist in any real standard sense? Also, if responsibility is so subject to the extreme you try to portray then, according to you, I am not wrong when I say that it's irresponsible. But does doing something illegal seem at all responsibly to you in any sense? Does that show the mark of a responsible person?

Given all that you're saying there, how can my viewpoint then be somehow less valid, wrong, or "untrue"?

And again, what I'm saying certainly does seem to be affecting you in some way even if it's not "offending" you at least according to what you say.

[Socks]

So to you responsibility and irresponsibility is more or less illusionary and they don't actual exist in any real standard sense? Also, if responsibility is so subject to the extreme you try to portray then, according to you, I am not wrong when I say that it's irresponsible.

It does exist, but only in your own sense, which even that could change from time to time. Have a lot of these individual senses, and you start to sort of form a general consensus about what is responsible and not, which also therefore changes from time to time. If this seems too uncertain and fragile, it should, everything about a social contract is uncertain and fragile, because it aims specifically to diminish the natural uncertainty and fragility that comes with life. And this exemplifies and explains perfectly why you are not wrong while I am right. Your view is institutional in meaning, and mine is personal in origin. The reason for this depends on which entity we deem to be the greater moral authority, your own conscious, or the collective will.

But does doing something illegal seem at all responsibly to you in any sense? Does that show the mark of a responsible person?

Come on dude, you can't speak like this. You can't frame or even conceive questions in ways that will limit and influence your response. Imagine an allegory, where prehistoric fish question the responsibility of their friends, who went out of the water and started walking on land. This is what you are essentially doing.

And again, what I'm saying certainly does seem to be affecting you in some way even if it's not "offending" you at least according to what you say.

Yes it's pissing me off because you refuse to move from your vantage point, instead, you merely alter the surroundings around you.

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

Doing something illegal shows you to be an irresponsible person. Which is what my point was. Does this offend you or something?

And what what assumptions and lack of context was there?

Yeah, but since when does legality equal responsibility?

What about civil liberties that are or were considered illegal.

Was MLK irresponsible for sitting in a white's only restaurant when it wasn't legal to? HOLY FUCK BLACK HISTORY MONTH REFERENCE!

[don't let's]

It does exist, but only in your own sense, which even that could change from time to time. Have a lot of these individual senses, and you start to sort of form a general consensus about what is responsible and not, which also therefore changes from time to time. If this seems too uncertain and fragile, it should, everything about a social contract is uncertain and fragile, because it aims specifically to diminish the natural uncertainty and fragility that comes with life. And this exemplifies and explains perfectly why you are not wrong while I am right. Your view is institutional in meaning, and mine is personal in origin. The reason for this depends on which entity we deem to be the greater moral authority, your own conscious, or the collective will.

But you said my previous statement was untrue meaning that I was wrong and yet now you're saying that I was actually right while you're right too. So which is it? Was it untrue or not?

Come on dude, you can't speak like this. You can't frame or even conceive questions in ways that will limit and influence your response. Imagine an allegory, where prehistoric fish question the responsibility of their friends, who went out of the water and started walking on land. This is what you are essentially doing.

Why is that wrong? And "does doing something illegal seem at all responsibly to you in any sense? Does that show the mark of a responsible person?" you didn't actually answer these directly. I don't see why you dodged them.

Yes it's pissing me off because you refuse to move from your vantage point, instead, you merely alter the surroundings around you.

Why do you let it piss you off so much? How am I "altering the surroundings around me"? Aren't you "refusing to move from your vantage point"?

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

P.S.- The people that honestly believe that "laws are created for a reason" are the first ones to not question them and the first to get trampled by them.

[don't let's]

Yeah, but since when does legality equal responsibility?

What about civil liberties that are or were considered illegal.

Was MLK irresponsible for sitting in a white's only restaurant when it wasn't legal to? HOLY FUCK BLACK HISTORY MONTH REFERENCE!

Is that equatable to underage drinking? Something like that is inhumane and is understandable.

Legality doesn't equal responsibility, but failure to comply with laws does generally show irresponsible behavior and is the mark of an irresponsible human. There are exceptions, but in most cases can you trust them to be responsible in other areas of their lives?

[don't let's]

P.S.- The people that honestly believe that "laws are created for a reason" are the first ones to not question them and the first to get trampled by them.

But what about people that just go against all laws for no reason at all except that it doesn't mesh with their lifestyle or because they have an authority problem?

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

Is that equatable to underage drinking? Something like that is inhumane and is understandable.

Legality doesn't equal responsibility, but failure to comply with laws does generally show irresponsible behavior and is the mark of an irresponsible human. There are exceptions, but in most cases can you trust them to be responsible in other areas of their lives?

By that rationale, Joe surgeon out there, who went through years of medical school and saves a few lives every week would be considered irresponsible if he has a joint on his day off.

But if, somehow, pot was legal tomorrow, it wouldn't matter if he did it at all right?

[Socks]

But you said my previous statement was untrue meaning that I was wrong and yet now you're saying that I was actually right while you're right too. So which is it? Was it untrue or not?

No, I said from a certain perspective you are right to say what you did, but this does not necessarily imply or affirm a truth, which is absolute even if its understanding is relative.

Why is that wrong? And "does doing something illegal seem at all responsibly to you in any sense? Does that show the mark of a responsible person?" you didn't actually answer these directly. I don't see why you dodged them.

I didn't dodge them, I answered them fully and in my own view. Only a fool would address a terrible question in the same manner it was asked. It automatically grants a certain power to the perspectives which fostered the question, and I refuse to recognize something I don't consider legitimate, if my response is to be considered valid at all.

Why do you let it piss you off so much? How am I "altering the surroundings around me"? Aren't you "refusing to move from your vantage point"?

It's profoundly vexing because this argument has been going on before us and will continue to go on well after us. And it's so bloody obvious why, but I will be polite now and leave it at that.

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

But what about people that just go against all laws for no reason at all except that it doesn't mesh with their lifestyle or because they have an authority problem?

I think that authority problem meshes pretty well with your "exception" statement above.

There's no universal issue here or anything. Conjecture and weird correlation.

[don't let's]

By that rationale, Joe surgeon out there, who went through years of medical school and saves a few lives every week would be considered irresponsible if he has a joint on his day off.

But if, somehow, pot was legal tomorrow, it wouldn't matter if he did it at all right?

I guess. But I don't see how that invalidates what I said since he would no longer be breaking the law. Though actually since I've written it out like that he could still actually be an irresponsible person since he was breaking the law before regardless if the actions all of the sudden become legal. Since it would be very possible that he was irresponsible in other areas of his life too.

[Socks]

I guess. But I don't see how that invalidates what I said since he would no longer be breaking the law.

It has to invalidate it otherwise responsibility to you is some technical matter entirely dependent upon the specifics of law, and has no connection to or bearing on the individual's beliefs, circumstances, opinions and views of himself and the world. This is probably one of most irresponsible and dangerous views anyone could ever conceive.

I'm just besides myself reading some of your replies, where you don't realize the implications of what you are actually saying. You are still assuming way too many things and choosing to interpreted arbitrary constructs as fundamentally absolute. This is the only reason that you see a connection between law and responsibility, in this particular case.

[don't let's]

No, I said from a certain perspective you are right to say what you did, but this does not necessarily imply or affirm a truth, which is absolute even if its understanding is relative.

But you said it was subjective so it is true. Right?

I didn't dodge them, I answered them fully and in my own view. Only a fool would address a terrible question in the same manner it was asked. It automatically grants a certain power to the perspectives which fostered the question, and I refuse to recognize something I don't consider legitimate, if my response is to be considered valid at all.

I wanted your personal viewpoint to those questions and a direct answer to them not how you "felt" about them and the whole situation of how the questions were asked. That should have been obvious and you still dodge them for some reason. I just wanted a look into your mind as how you really stand on that sort of situation. They were basically yes or no questions and then of course giving the reasoning for answering yes or no. I don't see what's hard about that and why you think it's some big huge trap.

It's profoundly vexing because this argument has been going on before us and will continue to go on well after us. And it's so bloody obvious why, but I will be polite now and leave it at that.

And "How am I "altering the surroundings around me"?"

You really don't like answering questions or providing reasoning for your statements, do you?