I have no idea what to title this... "It?" "Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa?"

[AJ Dual]

[HeroHog]

barf!

[Balog]

Actually, I'm not the one that loses reason.

Why do you care what this person does to themselves? Why? Seriously, why do you give even give a flying *expletive deleted*ck what this person does to themselves?

They went to a doctor. They had cosmetic surgery. It's done. It's not our jobs or anyone else's to tell them they can't. It's not our job to tell them they are crazy. As long as she pays for it and she's not an active threat to herself and others (and to be honest, I'm cool if she is an active threat to herself. If she wants to off herself, go for it. I don't care) then she can ride whatever coo coo train she wants.

And seriously, WHY DO YOU CARE what coo coo train anyone else is riding?

I don't think mentally ill people should be allowed to harm themselves. If you think that's a crazy evil statist position that's your problem.

[Balog]

Not sure the example you have there is at all related to this.  I happen to agree with BSL on that case.

The issue she raises about cosmetic surgery is actually legitimate.  We are far too accepting of it, when in reality people with severe depression go through with it in circumstances where mental health care would e been a far better outcome for the person.  It's a hard line to draw - but I think believing you are a dragon and morphing into a video game character is so far to one side of the "grey" that a mental health check should be step 1.

I agree with the over use of cosmetic surgery. But anyone equating "I want bigger breasts" with "I am a DRAGON so cut parts of my face off!" is so far beyond any reason it's ridiculous.

[roo_ster]

Cases like this show the intellectual, moral, and spiritual poverty of materialist political philosophies in general and of cultural libertarianism in particular.

[Sideways_8]

Cases like this show the intellectual, moral, and spiritual poverty of materialist political philosophies in general and of cultural libertarianism in particular.

So, what would be the right political philosophy in this case? Or if you were in charge how would you deal with this situation?

[230RN]

While I believe everybody ought to be allowed to go to hell in their own chosen handbasket, this is just cosplay or D&D in extremis.

Conformity to the norm is a survival trait.  Hence there is xenophobia, the built-in fear of strangeness in others.

Boy, do I feel xenophobic.

 , 230RN

[BlueStarLizzard]

I don't think mentally ill people should be allowed to harm themselves. If you think that's a crazy evil statist position that's your problem.

Define mentally ill. Where does it end? Because it case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of folks who would lock the lot of us up in padded cells because for some crazy reason we have guns.

[Angel Eyes]

Would these surgical procedures constitute a violation of the Hippocratic oath?

"Also I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief."

Seems that lopping off the patient's nose and ears for no good reason would qualify.

[AJ Dual]

Cases like this show the intellectual, moral, and spiritual poverty of materialist political philosophies in general and of cultural libertarianism in particular.

LOL.. There's no poverty, because libertarianism does not endorse or approve of oddball stuff like this, it merely recognizes, quite correctly, that establishing some sort of authority over people to prevent it is ultimately worse than the problem such authority purports to solve.

Granted, it's human nature to compartmentalize and engage in cognitive dissonance, thinking you can cherry-pick the freedoms you think are important, so you're in good company.

There couldn't possibly be any parallels between you perhaps being unhappy that someplace might decide to ban magazines over ten rounds, because they think they're "wrong", "scary", "unpleasant", and "not good for society", and you being unhappy that lizard-tranny is doing what he/she is doing because it's "wrong", "scary", "unpleasant", and "not good for society", could there?

Naw. Couldn't be.

[Balog]

Define mentally ill. Where does it end? Because it case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of folks who would lock the lot of us up in padded cells because for some crazy reason we have guns.

THE DUDE THINKS HE'S A FVCKING DRAGON, AND IS RADICALLY SELF MUTILATING TO COMPLETE HIS TRANSFORMATION.

Are you really saying that "If a person believes they are a mythical creature, and this belief drives them to self mutilation, they are mentally ill" is some sort of slippery slope that's going to lead to pogroms against gun owners? Yeah, this would be the "utter loss of rational thought" I was talking about before.

[Balog]

LOL.. There's no poverty, because libertarianism does not endorse or approve of oddball stuff like this, it merely recognizes, quite correctly, that establishing some sort of authority over people to prevent it is ultimately worse than the problem such authority purports to solve.

Granted, it's human nature to compartmentalize and engage in cognitive dissonance, thinking you can cherry-pick the freedoms you think are important, so you're in good company.

There couldn't possibly be any parallels between you perhaps being unhappy that someplace might decide to ban magazines over ten rounds, because they think they're "wrong", "scary", "unpleasant", and "not good for society", and you being unhappy that lizard-tranny is doing what he/she is doing because it's "wrong", "scary", "unpleasant", and "not good for society", could there?

Naw. Couldn't be.

So, in your view, laws preventing the insane from harming themselves is functionally equivalent to laws banning innocuous inanimate objects?

[AJ Dual]

So, in your view, laws preventing the insane from harming themselves is functionally equivalent to laws banning innocuous inanimate objects?

Sure, why not?

Continuing with the analogy, there's definitely people who think you and I are "insane" for wanting 30 round magazines and firearms, and merely owning them puts us at great peril for self-harm. And believe they have far too great a capacity to harm others against their will by merely existing in our possession.

By this reasoning, we get 51% of people to vote or believe this way, I guess we're screwed. We should just give up. Go back to flintlocks I guess.

Your problem, and those who agree it should be "illegal" to do this much extreme body-modification, or society should in some way act to prevent it, is that just because YOU believe there are moral absolutes somewhere "out there", that they actually exist, they do not. The things in your mind that you hold as moral absolutes are merely your subjective opinion. And how many people might share that same or similar subjective opinions does not change anything.

There is no demonstrable moral absolute other than the threshold which rises to doing something that harms another person or deprives them of their freedom or property against their will.  Anything else simply does not exist. 51%+ of the citizenry all thinking they do does not make them exist.

I certainly agree that the shemale lizard circus freak is unpleasant to look at, and I might not want to be in his/her presence either. And I absolutely agree it's dumb, and incredibly unwise, as it's unlikely to ever be reversed satisfactorily should it come to it's senses someday. However, I hold that "Somebody ought to do something about that!", especially when the person is only hurting themselves, is one of the most dangerous phrases in human history.

[BlueStarLizzard]

THE DUDE THINKS HE'S A FVCKING DRAGON, AND IS RADICALLY SELF MUTILATING TO COMPLETE HIS TRANSFORMATION.

Are you really saying that "If a person believes they are a mythical creature, and this belief drives them to self mutilation, they are mentally ill" is some sort of slippery slope that's going to lead to pogroms against gun owners? Yeah, this would be the "utter loss of rational thought" I was talking about before.

The question here is competence to understand his actions. This is usually where we define mentally ill to the degree which requires supervision and forced treatment.
Does he understand the ramifications and risks he takes when undergoing this transformation? Has he ever been declared by the courts to be incompetent to make these decisions? Does he have a history of SERIOUS mental illness that would make his competency questionable? If the answer to the above is "no", well, then rational thought gives him the right to do whatever the *expletive deleted*ck he wants with himself and we can't say "boo" about it.
I'm not saying we have like it, enjoy it, support it or even refrain from making fun of her. I am saying that she has the right to do whatever the *expletive deleted*ck she wants to do with herself.

and yes, it is a slippery slope. Being considered mentally competent to turn ones self into a dragon or to own guns is on the same page here. I'd bet $100 bucks this person suffers from a whole host of the milder mental illnesses, like depression or anxiety. Maybe even OCD or some other alphabet soup, AS DO MANY OF THE GUN OWNERS ON THIS BOARD.

[roo_ster]

Cases like this show the intellectual, moral, and spiritual poverty of materialist political philosophies in general and of cultural libertarianism in particular.

poverty (ˈpɒvətɪ)
n
1. the condition of being without adequate food, money, etc
2. scarcity or dearth: a poverty of wit.
3. (Agriculture) a lack of elements conducive to fertility in land or soil

I am using the term "poverty" in the second definition of "scarcity or dearth."

So, what would be the right political philosophy in this case? Or if you were in charge how would you deal with this situation?

Not sure about "right" or optimal, though several would be adequate.

Best example from history would likely be the _applied_ classical liberalism of the _founding_ generation as detailed in the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution would serve adequately in this case.  A vigorous local community and its standards would be up to the task.

Pretty much any of the applied political philosophies (such as they might have been) underlying the polities of the West from the collapse of the western Roman Empire up through the middle of the 20th century also would, more or less, be up to it.

Do note: None of those were/are materialist political philosophies, save that of revolutionary France (IIRC).  And even they were not so far gone that they would not be able to manage.

"I don't care enough about people I don't know to even say on the internet that they shouldn't maim themselves, and my not caring is a virtue."

fistful points out the moral and spiritual poverty.

LOL.. There's no poverty, because libertarianism does not endorse or approve of oddball stuff like this, it merely recognizes, quite correctly, that establishing some sort of authority over people to prevent it is ultimately worse than the problem such authority purports to solve.

Granted, it's human nature to compartmentalize and engage in cognitive dissonance, thinking you can cherry-pick the freedoms you think are important, so you're in good company.

There couldn't possibly be any parallels between you perhaps being unhappy that someplace might decide to ban magazines over ten rounds, because they think they're "wrong", "scary", "unpleasant", and "not good for society", and you being unhappy that lizard-tranny is doing what he/she is doing because it's "wrong", "scary", "unpleasant", and "not good for society", could there?

Naw. Couldn't be.

So, in your view, laws preventing the insane from harming themselves is functionally equivalent to laws banning innocuous inanimate objects?

Balog points out the _intellectual_ poverty of the cultural libertarian credo.  Taken to its logical conclusions, it results in absurdity, an intellectual failing.

Sure, why not?

Continuing with the analogy, there's definitely people who think you and I are "insane" for wanting 30 round magazines and firearms, and merely owning them puts us at great peril for self-harm. And believe they have far too great a capacity to harm others against their will by merely existing in our possession.

By this reasoning, we get 51% of people to vote or believe this way, I guess we're screwed. We should just give up. Go back to flintlocks I guess.

Your problem, and those who agree it should be "illegal" to do this much extreme body-modification, or society should in some way act to prevent it, is that just because YOU believe there are moral absolutes somewhere "out there", that they actually exist, they do not. The things in your mind that you hold as moral absolutes are merely your subjective opinion. And how many people might share that same or similar subjective opinions does not change anything.

There is no demonstrable moral absolute other than the threshold which rises to doing something that harms another person or deprives them of their freedom or property against their will.  Anything else simply does not exist. 51%+ of the citizenry all thinking they do does not make them exist.

I certainly agree that the shemale lizard circus freak is unpleasant to look at, and I might not want to be in his/her presence either. And I absolutely agree it's dumb, and incredibly unwise, as it's unlikely to ever be reversed satisfactorily should it come to it's senses someday. However, I hold that "Somebody ought to do something about that!", especially when the person is only hurting themselves, is one of the most dangerous phrases in human history.

If the above is relatively honest & accurate; no further argument need be made regarding the intellectual, moral, and spiritual poverty of cultural libertarianism; as the above readily admits to it. 

Not sure why there is any objection when the response to accusations of such poverty is essentially, "You just don't understand, we don't have any room in our philosophy for such notions."

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm not sure why you guys keep trying to convince AJ to support a moral argument?

I'm pretty sure he (and I) are completely morally bankrupt as far as you guys are concerned already... Calling him morally, spiritually and intellectually poor isn't going to change it.

[AJ Dual]

If the above is relatively honest & accurate; no further argument need be made regarding the intellectual, moral, and spiritual poverty of cultural libertarianism; as the above readily admits to it.  

Not sure why there is any objection when the response to accusations of such poverty is essentially, "You just don't understand, we don't have any room in our philosophy for such notions."

Since we seem to "agree to disagree" in terms of "simply not having room" our respective philosophies...

What is your magical threshold for self-harm where you feel you have the right to stop or prevent it? Smoking, alcohol, a more "normal" tattoo, something more, parachuting, swimming with sharks?

Because if you do believe you have the right, and I disagree, and you try to impose your will on me, I'll just have to shoot you.

It's really that simple.

But perhaps, like the anti-gunners in the 10+ round magazine analogy I posted above, perhaps you intend to outsource the responsibility to someone else, rather than take that risk personally? If so, you're a coward.

If you think greater power is magically invested in the state or just some larger body of people, than you yourself have alone, then you are a fool.

(Oh and if someone, especially a mod thinks I've crossed a line because of "Polite", I'll point out "Armed" and all that implies is in the name first.)

[roo_ster]

I'm not sure why you guys keep trying to convince AJ to support a moral argument?

I'm pretty sure he (and I) are completely morally bankrupt as far as you guys are concerned already... Calling him morally, spiritually and intellectually poor isn't going to change it.

It was an observation.  Not necessarily trying to convert you to the Church of the Political Philosophy That Includes a Moral Component. 

I was reading the thread and the more I saw how the materialist approach was lacking as a workable guide to human relations in a group with regard to incompetent/mentally ill adults.  Cultural libertarianism is probably the most benign of the lot, but still fails, objectively, to deal with some rather vital issues:
1. Children.
2. Incompetent adults.

The foremost is vital to a workable philosophy and the CL's poverty here places it in the category of utopian creed.  That also means that the lack of a moral/spiritual component to CL is an intellectual failure.  If some intellectual construct requires impossible conditions, it is a failure. 

Heard the one about the physicist, the chemist, and the economist on a desert island? If you work here you have; it’s been our favorite joke this year.

Goes like this:

A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a desert island. One can only imagine what sort of play date went awry to land them there. Anyway, they’re hungry. Like, desert island hungry. And then a can of soup washes ashore. Progresso Reduced Sodium Chicken Noodle, let’s say. Which is perfect, because the physicist can’t have much salt, and the chemist doesn’t eat red meat.

But, famished as they are, our three professionals have no way to open the can. So they put their brains to the problem. The physicist says “We could drop it from the top of that tree over there until it breaks open.” And the chemist says “We could build a fire and sit the can in the flames until it bursts open.”

Those two squabble a bit, until the economist says “No, no, no. Come on, guys, you’d lose most of the soup. Let’s just assume a can opener.”

GET IT?

You can’t just assume a can opener and have it appear, obviously. But economists regularly rely on analogous assumptions of conditions that don’t actually exist in the real world. This is one of the fundamental ways in which economics differs from the hard sciences, even though economists often seek to present their views with the certainty of, say, a physicist or chemist.

[Sideways_8]

Not sure about "right" or optimal, though several would be adequate.

Best example from history would likely be the _applied_ classical liberalism of the _founding_ generation as detailed in the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution would serve adequately in this case.  A vigorous local community and its standards would be up to the task.

Pretty much any of the applied political philosophies (such as they might have been) underlying the polities of the West from the collapse of the western Roman Empire up through the middle of the 20th century also would, more or less, be up to it.

Do note: None of those were/are materialist political philosophies, save that of revolutionary France (IIRC).  And even they were not so far gone that they would not be able to manage.

Okay, that answers the first question. Now what about the second.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Rooster, you completely bypassed the question of competency.

You have to DEFINE mentally ill. Define the EXACT parameters and do so in a way that can't come back and bite you in the ass.

At what point do we have the right to save people from themselves? At what point do they lose the rights to decide for themselves what they can do?

and it has to cover equivalents. You don't think a breast reduction is mutilation? Do you know the risks of breast reductions? I do. I looked in to it. I decided not to do it (at least until I was passed the point of having children) due to the risks.
What about liposuction? Gastric bypass? Nose jobs (of the 'normal' variety)? Ear piercing? Ear gauges?
Sorry, but the only actual difference between those mutilations and what dragon lady did is cultural acceptance. That's it. Foot bindings, wasp waist, elongated necks... Shall I go on?

[Balog]

Does he have a history of SERIOUS mental illness that would make his competency questionable?

He thinks he's a mythical creature. He is a human. Who believes he is a non-existant magical beast. If that doesn't call into question his grasp of reality for you, then I'm not sure what would. "How dare you tell that schizophrenic that his dog isn't really telling him to gouge his eyes out?!?!?!?! You're no different than a gun grabber!"

You are literally beyond parody.

[BlueStarLizzard]

He thinks he's a mythical creature. He is a human. Who believes he is a non-existant magical beast. If that doesn't call into question his grasp of reality for you, then I'm not sure what would. "How dare you tell that schizophrenic that his dog isn't really telling him to gouge his eyes out?!?!?!?! You're no different than a gun grabber!"

You are literally beyond parody.

But he's not a schizophrenic. He has no diagnosis of a recognized mental illness. Is he delusional? Hearing voices? Does he meet the criteria of having a severe mental illness? Nope.

He probably just likes walking around and pretending he's a *expletive deleted*ing dragon and you know what, if that's what he wants to do, we can't stop him.

You're saying you believe he is actually that mentally incompetent? You are literally beyond not so bright. 

[roo_ster]

Since we seem to "agree to disagree" in terms of "simply not having room" our respective philosophies...

What is your magical threshold for self-harm where you feel you have the right to stop or prevent it? Smoking, alcohol, a more "normal" tattoo, something more, parachuting, swimming with sharks?

Because if you do believe you have the right, and I disagree, and you try to impose your will on me, I'll just have to shoot you.

It's really that simple.

But perhaps, like the anti-gunners in the 10+ round magazine analogy I posted above, perhaps you intend to outsource the responsibility to someone else, rather than take that risk personally? If so, you're a coward.

If you think greater power is magically invested in the state or just some larger body of people, than you yourself have alone, then you are a fool.

(Oh and if someone, especially a mod thinks I've crossed a line because of "Polite", I'll point out "Armed" and all that implies is in the name first.)

Not to worry, were you on fire I would not stop to piss on you.  Let Darwin do the dirty work and chlorinate the gene pool is the best answer in many cases.

The threshold for intervention on my part is is very much dependent on my relation to the person is question.  Lowest for those nearest to me by blood or relation, getting gradually higher the more distant the relationship by blood or fellowship. 
* Immediate family (wife & kids)
* Father, mother, siblings
* Nieces, nephews
* Aunts, uncles
* Cousins
* Friends
* Neighbors, fellow parishioners
* Strangers of same biological background
* Strangers of even more distant biological background

Another axis to consider is that of the severity of self-harm.  Still another is risk to my self or my family.  There are probably more factors.

Of course, I would enlist the aid of my local community in many cases.  I can not be everywhere at all times, after all.  I pay plenty in taxes for local police & sheriffs, the county hospital, and the county mental hospital.  I know folk that do this work, as they are my neighbors and/or colleagues of my wife.

So, in your case AJ:
You being a stranger, belligerent, and having already threatened violence; I would likely let you sleep in the bed you made for yourself or burn without intervention.  Now, if your self-immolation were likely to be a fire hazard to others' persons or property, I would be certain to call the local emergency services.  The only way I can conceive of acting my own self would be if your self-harm were to place me & mine at risk.  In that case, I would do whatever I felt necessary to eliminate that risk.



NOTE 1:
a. I have physically restrained a neighbor who was suffering the effects of TBI and a psych medication foul-up.
b. I have also restrained a physically able man who had suffered from the effects of hypoxia on the brain from a previous illness.
c. When in HS, college, and the service, I did various things to keep intoxicated buddies from self-harm, several times against their will (at the time).  Lost one buddy.

NOTE 2:
My wife has intervened as part of her work more times than I can recount.  She's good with the crazy patients, so most time can talk them down.  Other times, she called on the resources available to her.

[Balog]

Sure, why not?

This line of thinking can be applied to all laws. All law is nothing more than subjective morality, including the ones against theft rape and murder. You're just not bitching about them because they agree with your personal moral compass, such as it is.

Continuing with the analogy, there's definitely people who think you and I are "insane" for wanting 30 round magazines and firearms, and merely owning them puts us at great peril for self-harm. And believe they have far too great a capacity to harm others against their will by merely existing in our possession.

So? Has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation.

By this reasoning, we get 51% of people to vote or believe this way, I guess we're screwed. We should just give up. Go back to flintlocks I guess.

That's a problem with democracy, or really any form of .gov whatsoever. You're arguing against literally any form of law or .gov here.

Your problem, and those who agree it should be "illegal" to do this much extreme body-modification, or society should in some way act to prevent it, is that just because YOU believe there are moral absolutes somewhere "out there", that they actually exist, they do not. The things in your mind that you hold as moral absolutes are merely your subjective opinion. And how many people might share that same or similar subjective opinions does not change anything.

Your problem is that you're arguing a point that no one is making. We're talking about whether insane people should be allowed to self harm or not.

There is no demonstrable moral absolute other than the threshold which rises to doing something that harms another person or deprives them of their freedom or property against their will.  Anything else simply does not exist. 51%+ of the citizenry all thinking they do does not make them exist.

Lol. "There is no morality, except what I believe. That's uhhhh, different somehow."

You claim that is a demonstrable moral absolute. Put up or shut up, demonstrate it for me. How is your personal subjectively derived morality any different or better than mine? You claim you can prove it, so either do so or shut up.

I certainly agree that the shemale lizard circus freak is unpleasant to look at, and I might not want to be in his/her presence either. And I absolutely agree it's dumb, and incredibly unwise, as it's unlikely to ever be reversed satisfactorily should it come to it's senses someday. However, I hold that "Somebody ought to do something about that!", especially when the person is only hurting themselves, is one of the most dangerous phrases in human history.

So, just to be clear, you feel that finding someone incompetent because they are a danger "to themselves or others" is morally wrong, and the only moral course is to change that to "a danger to others." And you claim this in between railing against the concept of morality.

You're adorable. I'm not sure which is funnier, the people arguing that a guy who honestly believes he is a dragon is sane, or the people making passionate arguments against the concept of morality interspersed with equally passionate arguments about why their morality is correct.

[Balog]

Since we seem to "agree to disagree" in terms of "simply not having room" our respective philosophies...

What is your magical threshold for self-harm where you feel you have the right to stop or prevent it? Smoking, alcohol, a more "normal" tattoo, something more, parachuting, swimming with sharks?

Because if you do believe you have the right, and I disagree, and you try to impose your will on me, I'll just have to shoot you.

It's really that simple.

But perhaps, like the anti-gunners in the 10+ round magazine analogy I posted above, perhaps you intend to outsource the responsibility to someone else, rather than take that risk personally? If so, you're a coward.

If you think greater power is magically invested in the state or just some larger body of people, than you yourself have alone, then you are a fool.

(Oh and if someone, especially a mod thinks I've crossed a line because of "Polite", I'll point out "Armed" and all that implies is in the name first.)

That's an impressive bit of missing the point. The line is whether or not the person is insane. As evidenced by, you know, whether or not they think they're a dragon.