| An alcoholic enters the only store that sells alcohol, with enough money in his pocket to buy himself some. Two scenarios: a) the alcoholic successfully buys himself the alcohol he wants b) the store owner denies selling him alcohol because he knows he's an alcoholic In which scenario is the alcoholic more free? |
| addiction or instant gratification is not freedom for sure |
MizunoWaveRider said: The first scenario gives the alcoholic freedom. In which scenario is the alcoholic more free? |
tycke said: I'm curious to hear from the people who voted option b. @deg I'm guessing you voted b? What if the alcoholic has other means to obtain the alcohol or falls into a different addiction? ye i voted b this is just classic Structure vs Agency imo and for me Structure or rules of the system do limit choices or unhealthy choices in this case for the addicts if he falls to another addiction then either add another rule or let him be as you cannot entirely stop people from doing stupid choices anyway do you really have freedom if you have no future? or your future is doomed? |
deg said: What you're doing is virtue signaling here. The alcoholic in this scenario is an adult and he makes his own choices. Denying him what he chooses does not give him freedom in any way, shape or form.tycke said: I'm curious to hear from the people who voted option b. @deg I'm guessing you voted b? What if the alcoholic has other means to obtain the alcohol or falls into a different addiction? ye i voted b this is just classic Structure vs Agency imo and for me Structure or rules of the system do limit choices or unhealthy choices in this case for the addicts if he falls to another addiction then either add another rule or let him be as you cannot entirely stop people from doing stupid choices anyway do you really have freedom if you have no future? or your future is doomed? |
deg said: tycke said: I'm curious to hear from the people who voted option b. @deg I'm guessing you voted b? What if the alcoholic has other means to obtain the alcohol or falls into a different addiction? ye i voted b this is just classic Structure vs Agency imo and for me Structure or rules of the system do limit choices or unhealthy choices in this case for the addicts if he falls to another addiction then either add another rule or let him be as you cannot entirely stop people from doing stupid choices anyway do you really have freedom if you have no future? or your future is doomed? But where do you draw the line for rules? Who decides what is considered "alcoholic"? What if he's a functioning alcoholic with a job that he does well which is why he has the funds to afford the alcohol in the first place? What if whoever is in charge says anyone who buys more than a bottle of vodka in a week is an alcoholic (maybe despite that the person was buying for a party of people for example?) I just think putting limits like that limits freedom overall. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
| I would assume anyone buying alcohol is an alcoholic. Option a is way more free than b. Unless that is, we refer to discrimination as a freedom so I guess that is more vague. |
 |
| I'll go b. I'd say being able to do anything you want except drink beer (a true tragedy, admittedly) is more free than being able to do nothing than drink beer. Especially if the person is an alcoholic and does want to drink for drinking's sake, but rather to fill an addiction. |
 |
Klad said: deg said: What you're doing is virtue signaling here. The alcoholic in this scenario is an adult and he makes his own choices. Denying him what he chooses does not give him freedom in any way, shape or form.ye i voted b this is just classic Structure vs Agency imo and for me Structure or rules of the system do limit choices or unhealthy choices in this case for the addicts if he falls to another addiction then either add another rule or let him be as you cannot entirely stop people from doing stupid choices anyway do you really have freedom if you have no future? or your future is doomed? the point is if everyone is free to be addicted like alcoholic then what happens to society? and the future of society? is that true freedom? tycke said: deg said: ye i voted b this is just classic Structure vs Agency imo and for me Structure or rules of the system do limit choices or unhealthy choices in this case for the addicts if he falls to another addiction then either add another rule or let him be as you cannot entirely stop people from doing stupid choices anyway do you really have freedom if you have no future? or your future is doomed? But where do you draw the line for rules? Who decides what is considered "alcoholic"? What if he's a functioning alcoholic with a job that he does well which is why he has the funds to afford the alcohol in the first place? What if whoever is in charge says anyone who buys more than a bottle of vodka in a week is an alcoholic (maybe despite that the person was buying for a party of people for example?) I just think putting limits like that limits freedom overall. it does limit individual freedom more but addiction is unhealthy anyway it will destroy your future is just my point so what if society encourages alcoholism more isnt that bad for the future of society? and is addiction really freedom or slavery to the harmful substance? |
| @deg it may make the individual who is addicted a slave to an extent (but, again, there are functioning addicts out there) But overall it could limit the freedoms of the majority of people who use substances responsibly. It would really depend on who's in charge of deciding where the lines are drawn. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
tycke said: @deg it may make the individual who is addicted a slave to an extent (but, again, there are functioning addicts out there) But overall it could limit the freedoms of the majority of people who use substances responsibly. It would really depend on who's in charge of deciding where the lines are drawn. ye im not a policy maker so im not gonna argue on which policy is better for the war on drugs problem for example imo addiction is slavery to the harmful substances |
deg said: That opens up a bigger discussion. From the way you said that, you implied that every individual in society would want to be an alcoholic but something is not allowing them. At 18, (or 21 if you're in the states), everyone is free to decide whether they want to become alcoholics or not. So no, I think that a large part of the society obviously thinks that is not a healthy decision. And yes, if the entire society are alcoholics then that society deserves whatever it's coming for them, or as you said, no future. the point is if everyone is free to be addicted like alcoholic then what happens to society? and the future of society? is that true freedom? |
Klad said: deg said: That opens up a bigger discussion. From the way you said that, you implied that every individual in society would want to be an alcoholic but something is not allowing them. At 18, (or 21 if you're in the states), everyone is free to decide whether they want to become alcoholics or not. So no, I think that a large part of the society obviously thinks that is not a healthy decision. And yes, if the entire society are alcoholics then that society deserves whatever it's coming for them, or as you said, no future. the point is if everyone is free to be addicted like alcoholic then what happens to society? and the future of society? is that true freedom? is instant gratification (short small term rewards) or delayed gratification (big long term rewards) better? again this is addiction though its just the war on drugs again for example |
deg said: That's a pretty broad question, but generally instant gratification tends to be a negative factor towards reaching a bigger goal. But then another question arises, what if instant gratification is one's goal and who are we to judge them?Klad said: That opens up a bigger discussion. From the way you said that, you implied that every individual in society would want to be an alcoholic but something is not allowing them. At 18, (or 21 if you're in the states), everyone is free to decide whether they want to become alcoholics or not. So no, I think that a large part of the society obviously thinks that is not a healthy decision. And yes, if the entire society are alcoholics then that society deserves whatever it's coming for them, or as you said, no future. is instant gratification (short small term rewards) or delayed gratification (big long term rewards) better? again this is addiction though its just the war on drugs again for example |
tycke said: If being addicted is a form of slavery, and alcoholism is a form of addiction, wouldn't denying that alcoholic his alcohol free him from that slavery?@deg it may make the individual who is addicted a slave to an extent (but, again, there are functioning addicts out there) That is the fundamental question. You can exchange the alcoholism for any other form of addiction, like being addicted to cigarettes or being addicted to drugs. I didn't vote yet btw. |
| Neither option is relevant to the freedom of said alcoholic. |
 |
Klad said: deg said: That's a pretty broad question, but generally instant gratification tends to be a negative factor towards reaching a bigger goal. But then another question arises, what if instant gratification is one's goal and who are we to judge them?is instant gratification (short small term rewards) or delayed gratification (big long term rewards) better? again this is addiction though its just the war on drugs again for example well again society has no future if the war on drugs fail big time but not saying the current ways of the war on drugs is effective too i know addiction is a hard social problem and even harder individual problem im just saying addiction is slavery to the harmful substance |
| @mizunowaverider Ultimately I believe people are free to become slaves and it's no one else's (other than their loved ones) business. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
deg said: I like what Australia is doing with tobacco, for example. (If I'm not mistaken) People who are born after 2000 are prohibited by law to purchase any tobacco-related product. Now that's how you deal with issues like this imoKlad said: That's a pretty broad question, but generally instant gratification tends to be a negative factor towards reaching a bigger goal. But then another question arises, what if instant gratification is one's goal and who are we to judge them? well again society has no future if the war on drugs fail big time but not saying the current ways of the war on drugs is effective too i know addiction is a hard social problem and even harder individual problem im just saying addiction is slavery to the harmful substance |
| For the record I do think business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason but I would hope they really take the context into consideration. If the liquor store owner knows the buyer is stealing from his elderly parents for liquor for example but if the owner just sees someone buying 5 bottles of vodka a week without any other context I would question that. Maybe I will vote b after all. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
| @tycke i googled functioning addicts and they indeed exist but i think they are rare and not the majority of addicts out there so its still a big both social and individual problem imo but ye im not gonna argue about policy making here since the war on drugs is still a hard social and political problem anyway |
| im sure the a voters are libertarians since MAL has a lot of libertarians anyway and this is the biggest problem they have imo if they weaken the government to the point of no government then it will become a narco state and worse a failed state in no time since addiction especially drug addiction is that problematic |
| Scenario A - Freedom to purchase - No freedom to say "no" to purchasing, due to addiction Scenario B - No freedom to purchase - No freedom to say "no" to purchasing, due to addiction Scenario A seems like the case where he has more freedom at that present time, but if we're talking about the long-run, Scenario B could possibly be the answer instead if the alcoholic manages to overcome or greatly lessen his alcohol addiction due to the store owner's rejections. So yeah, I think it depends on two things: whether the alcoholic remains an alcoholic or not after being rejected by the store owner, and whether we're talking about the present time or the future / the long-run. |
| A of course. B is just an excuse for abuse of tyrannical authority. Other people have no right to tell you how to live your life, its yours not theirs to live. |
| Buy my awesome BDSM male domination book here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174760 Visit my Discord https://discord.com/channels/1047490147794550844/1047490149161898039 I am not there most of the time but you can leave a message. Or my blog here https://BDSMAnime.blogspot.com/ Or here https://BDSMAnime18.blogspot.com/ Submit to me and become my subject here https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=88107 |
ThorLL said: A of course. B is just an excuse for abuse of tyrannical authority. Other people have no right to tell you how to live your life, its yours not theirs to live. So why do you get to tell me how I run my business? Seems pretty tyrannical to me. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
MizunoWaveRider said: tycke said: If being addicted is a form of slavery, and alcoholism is a form of addiction, wouldn't denying that alcoholic his alcohol free him from that slavery?@deg it may make the individual who is addicted a slave to an extent (but, again, there are functioning addicts out there) That is the fundamental question. You can exchange the alcoholism for any other form of addiction, like being addicted to cigarettes or being addicted to drugs. I didn't vote yet btw. Absence of freedom is when someone else forces you to do things you do not want to do. As far as I understand addicted people will suffer if you take away what they are addicted to. Thus you not only take away their freedom but also cause them pain and suffering, all while wrapping it in a false narrative of liberating them from addiction. That is like Putin liberating Ukraine from Nazi. I personally do not have anything against addicted people so long as they stay away from me do not cause problems to me personally. Live and let live. Soul consciously or unconsciously always seeks pleasure. People need things that will give them gratification. Anime, video games work for some. Alcohol for others. tycke said: ThorLL said: A of course. B is just an excuse for abuse of tyrannical authority. Other people have no right to tell you how to live your life, its yours not theirs to live. So why do you get to tell me how I run my business? Seems pretty tyrannical to me. That would be the most illogical thing for a store owner to do. He will lose profits. In the first place it you are like that, they why even run the alcohol store? There will always be alcoholics in there. |
| Buy my awesome BDSM male domination book here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174760 Visit my Discord https://discord.com/channels/1047490147794550844/1047490149161898039 I am not there most of the time but you can leave a message. Or my blog here https://BDSMAnime.blogspot.com/ Or here https://BDSMAnime18.blogspot.com/ Submit to me and become my subject here https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=88107 |
| @thorLL I don't disagree but at the same time I still believe a business owner should be able to refuse business to anyone for any reason. Not allowing them to do so limits their freedom as well. The alcoholic can walk down the street to the business who will sell to them if they choose. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
MizunoWaveRider said: I go with A. I knd of want to go with B but at the same time do we want store clerks making health and other decisions for us? For example do you want the store clerk at a grocery store saying sorry fatty no Twinkies and cupcakes for you.An alcoholic enters the only store that sells alcohol, with enough money in his pocket to buy himself some. Two scenarios: a) the alcoholic successfully buys himself the alcohol he wants b) the store owner denies selling him alcohol because he knows he's an alcoholic In which scenario is the alcoholic more free? |
ezikialrage said: MizunoWaveRider said: I go with A. I knd of want to go with B but at the same time do we want store clerks making health and other decisions for us? For example do you want the store clerk at a grocery store saying sorry fatty no Twinkies and cupcakes for you.An alcoholic enters the only store that sells alcohol, with enough money in his pocket to buy himself some. Two scenarios: a) the alcoholic successfully buys himself the alcohol he wants b) the store owner denies selling him alcohol because he knows he's an alcoholic In which scenario is the alcoholic more free? OP says the store owner, not random clerk. I've gone into detail about why I changed my a vote to a b vote. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
| I am more concerned with people who want to do 'what is good for you' even if you do not think that it is good for you and do not want it. My parents were like that and I hate them or people like then. I mistrust any authority for that reason as well. |
| Buy my awesome BDSM male domination book here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174760 Visit my Discord https://discord.com/channels/1047490147794550844/1047490149161898039 I am not there most of the time but you can leave a message. Or my blog here https://BDSMAnime.blogspot.com/ Or here https://BDSMAnime18.blogspot.com/ Submit to me and become my subject here https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=88107 |
| Scenerio A - That's what I call a typical day in my country Scenerio B - It doesn't happen, cause if you deny to sell you earn less money + if you deny to sell alcohol to a drunk person [no matter if an alcoholic or someone who got drunk once for a few months] than it will make him angry and that person might demolish/destroy your store + hurt you, heard alot about such stuff when new not experienced cashiers denied alcohol and regretted it, aswell as I know personally a person who was denied on alcohol and threw some glass bottles at cashiers, + if you deny them they will find another store which will sell them x) so that scenerio doesn't even make sense as it won't solve enything. |
| Choice B would never happen because the goal of a store owner is to make money, and even if he did that alcoholic would just buy drink some place else. As far as the freedom goes the answer is it's neither since alcoholic just like all junkies is a slave to his addiction. |
  ❤ Incessant Rain ❤ “Can you let me have some fun this time?”  |
| Voted b because alcoholics should face reality more. |
| Rosa Umineko Drip The Witch of Badassery. |
| In scenario A there is absolutely no freedom when one chained by his/her own desires. In scenario B there is freedom, there is always a choice. The alcoholic can leave and look for another store, or the alcoholic can rob the store. Or bargain. |
 |
Helltaker said: Choice B would never happen because the goal of a store owner is to make money, and even if he did that alcoholic would just buy drink some place else. As far as the freedom goes the answer is it's neither since alcoholic just like all junkies is a slave to his addiction. Not necessarily true. If the store owner suspects the alcoholic is getting his funds illegally the owner might not want to be part of that. |
♡☆♡☆♡ |
| This is a trick question because freedom doesn't exist. |
| There is no such thing as freedom.. You don't even get the choice to choose your own name and nationality |
 |
| Obviously the first option. It's not the store clerk's responsibility to ensure that the alcoholic is responsible. A critical element of freedom is to be responsible for yourself. That's the tradeoff. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| The one where we follow it to the logical conclusion of, some are not fit to accept freedom of responsibility for themselves. Therefore, they are not fir to be free and we should intervene to provide State sponsored lobotomies and accept responsibility for them in a asylum safe space in perpetuity. |
 |
| If an alcoholic doesnt drink now and then they can have a seizure and die till they body weans off of it. |
| a is the answer im the alcoholic so i do this regularly if someone answered b i hope they die |
 |
| Well a of course, a shop owner cant force people out of addiction, and forcing people to heal may seem reasonable from the outside but almost always make it worse, that must comes from them or its no use. Besides this one has already been historically tried and we all know how bad prohibition did go. |
 |
| choice b is like in a utilitarian society, it's likely to be choice a Cuz money is everything |
    it's a cruel world out there |
More topics from this board
» Are video games a waste of time and money?? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - May 27 |
71 |
by RyuRabbit
»»
51 seconds ago |
|
» do you still live with your parents?FruitPunchBaka - 8 minutes ago |
0 |
by FruitPunchBaka
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» Can't come up with a name for an art accountStrawberryBlxxd - 36 minutes ago |
5 |
by Kikugi
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» The captcha doesn't just work for the bots, it also effect people that are drunk or hightsukareru - May 25 |
18 |
by whitebeartigtig
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» what's the first thing you would do if you wake up in your middle school/high school years tomorrow morning?FruitPunchBaka - May 23 |
33 |
by RyuRabbit
»»
1 hour ago |