Mangetout,
That is one implication. I also find that focusing upon that specific implication draws attention away from the overt statement, which itself has considerable merit.
(side comment: this message board is almost like a chat room!)
CURSE THE HAMSTERS! They ate my post.
Here I go again…
So they can drop this addiction? This undesired (by the addict), unnatural (by the original chemical/psychological configuration of the addict), unappealing (in the eyes of the addict and his society) state of being?
So they can, like addicts to alcohol, drugs, or solvent-sniffing, go back to leading their normal lives?
But air, water, and food aern’t like this. They aren’t something that people bean using, and then couldn’t stop for fear of adverse symptoms or death. Take, as an illustration, some newborn babies, before their first breath. Deny some alcohol, and other air. What happens? The ones who never taste alcohol live on. the ones who never taste air are destroyed.
If you’re stubborn, you might argue that, like in the case of fetal alcohol syndrome, the child was exposed to Oxygen molecules (the addictive agent in air, perhaps) in the womb.
Fine. Get some sperm, and an ovum. Make yourself a zygote. Now deny it either food molecules, water, or oxygen. See if it does any better than the baby you denied these things to.
Humans are built of these things. They aren’t objects which, once given, can become unremovable. They are things whose absence negates the life. Unless, of course, you suggest that earthly, corporeal life is only a disordered state for a human soul, not unlike alcohol addiction.
If that’s the debate, then fine. You’ve moved into religion. If this is the case, drop the fancy clothes, and argue in favour of the state not restricting religious freedom to self-destruct.
Or, perhaps ‘living your live’ to you means somethingaltogether else. Make it clear, please.
wolfstu,
What was your normal life before you were addicted to oxygen?
I suggest that it is whatever occurs after one is released from their addiction to oxygen. You speak of this being abnormal.
I do not see how the state of being addicted to oxygen, or perception is any more or less normal than not being addicted to it, to the degree that one “returns to their normal state”.
You still return to your normal state, regardless – if one seeks to veiw it from that perspective. From that line, one could argue that the resulting state from treatment to this addiction is the most fundamentally normal state. I’m not seeing how your normal state trumps the other one.
You comment on religious freedom. I do not equate the belief that one can cure themselves of their addiction to perception with various undemonstrable ideas of cause and effect. I do not have the capacity to demonstrate the truth of a given religion or deity to you. I find it to be easy to demonstrate that you are not required to inhale oxygen. The correlation between treatement for addiction and religion eludes me.
I’m not compelled by arguments of souls, although this argument may serve as someone elses motive for treatment. This being the case, I’m not going to address what is or isn’t “order for the soul”.
Stop producing the means for your survival until you starve. Unfortunately, a bunch of people will try really hard to give you food that you didn’t produce or earn, so you’ll probably have to end up taking some sort of proactive course to reach the alternative to life.
As for this OP, if this is what you consider a “clever” analogy trying to make some coherent point, then now is the time to reveal it. If not, then please abandon whatever gimmick this is and move along. Thanks.
“addiction” does not mean “need in order to live” or “will experience great pain if stopped.”
Moderator’s Note: Is posting on the Straight Dope Message Board an addiction that requires treatment?