Comment Commentary - Driving High
- Brent Wiseman
- Apr 16, 2017
- 22 min read
I know this probably seems incredibly petty, but I assure you I have a purpose for posting this.
A post where I commentate a Facebook thread (boy, doesn’t this sound fun to read?). At the time of this writing, there are 187 comments, though I don’t believe it is counting all the reply threads within it as well. The point is, there are many comments. I’ll give you the setup and then copy all relevant comments, skipping most of the many repeated-in-different-words, irrelevant, abnormally irrational, malicious/patronizing memes directed at me, etc. Sometimes they nearly overlapped, they were being written so fast at points, so it may seem like subsequent comments are ignoring the previous. This may sound like there’s an incredible risk of me showing you only comments that make me look good or something like that, and there totally is, but you’ll have to take it with a grain of salt. I’m not leaving out anything relevant or intentionally obscuring anything. I’ll get to the point of this commentary afterwards.
Someone shared a video and had this to say of it:
//When I see the police - ostensible representatives of justice and protectors of truth - engaging in such flagrant lies and propaganda, it makes me wonder who they think they are fooling.
When the news will not check the police on their obvious lies, or do even a sliver of research before airing such tripe, is it any wonder why people cry 'fake news'?
The media are supposed to check the powerful. That leaves checking the media to us.//
The video was your typical local news story about the dangers of driving while stoned. They used these goggles that simulate being high. They are supposed to reduce your reaction time, mess with depth perception, etc. One camera shot looked through the goggles and you can see that it is noticeably more difficult to make things out - a trait that commenters referred to frequently as ‘foggy’. The goggles were specifically made for such a simulation, called “Fatal Vision Marijuana” goggles. Framing the top and bottom of the video was the words “THIS IS HOW STUPID POLICE & MEDIA THINK WE ARE”. Right away, I had my doubts. When someone precedes showing you something with an indication of how they expect you to react after seeing it, it’s time to be wary. It showed a reporter putting on the goggles and going through an obstacle course in a go cart type vehicle - the course set up by law enforcement. She failed the course pretty heavily, followed by missing basketball baskets horribly and failing a field sobriety test. The point of the video was to show how impaired you are while high to combat the common moron who says things like "I drive better when I'm stoned!". The argument being made in the post was that the report was a lie, fake news, untrue, false, etc.
What really got me was that this was on a philosophy page (albeit, on Facebook). These people should have known better. The majority of the responses were pro-marijuana, anti-media/law enforcement. While I am pro-marijuana myself, that is irrelevant to the determination of if this constituted fake news. That's what I had a problem with. Out of the 30 or so comments at that point, I saw I believe two other people who questioned the conclusions of the rest. This was another example of me being completely bemused when it turned out the vast majority of people had the perceptions they did - completely opposite of what I would have expected. I would have guessed that this would have been the reaction from the masses, but not this philosophy page that I’d had so much great, rational discourse on. Eventually, I was called arrogant for my arguments. That is also irrelevant, but after writing this paragraph, maybe they were correct. My arguments still stand.
Here are a few of the early comments from random people [sic, btw]:
“Those are not journalists, they are reporters. They report "news" without any analysis, critical evaluation, et al. It is my opinion that most of them could not pass a 9th grade test on general knowledge.”
“Such horseshit!”
“Put something blurry on your face and it's hard to see - Breaking News! Next week - The wheels on the bus go around and around, true or false?”
“Losing the ability to drive because of weed, tells me you probably are a really crappy driver regardless…”
“”When does weed make your eye sight foggy?”
“What a mother f***** thinks they can put on a pear of goggles and simulate what it's like being high this is a perfect example of fake news and basically Down and Out lies. If they really wanted to do it properly let a person do it straight then get high then do it again.” Sorry just sick and tired of all the lying and b******* news that they just expect us to believe because they said it”
“Fake news”
“I can't believe this is even a discussion, as it is laughable at best to put on faulty glasses and say it simulates being high. And if you don't smoke weed, STFU because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. An argument for arguments sake is just you being a condescending asshole with no real value to this conversation.”
Cogent response:
- Steve - “The last time I was high, actually it was the time before last, I crashed three times in one journey.
I get that the trendy thing nowadays is to pretend that dope is the worlds greatest naturally occurring substance, a cure for known diseases and without any downside whatsoever, but that's complete bollocks. No it doesn't cure cancer and yes, it can be demonstrably harmful. That's not to say that it doesn't have positives or that this "test" was a legitimate one, but the all too common pro-marijuana make believe is simple bullshit.
It's like anything else; moderation is all good but too much is not going to be good for you. A glass of wine a day is actually good for you, but most of the pro-marijuana crowd will go out of their way to tell everyone just how bad alcohol is. Same thing applies here. Every single person I know who has been a long term, heavy marijuana smoker has ended up a brainless moron, and it does have other dangers (such as I pointed out in the first sentence on this post). This 'test' is obviously not to scientific standards - as if the majority of humans ever cared about that - and it should not be accepted as if it did, but it makes a valid point.
Before anyone complains, I am all for legalising marijuana and do recognise that, like alcohol in moderation, it has benefits. But we can still have certain rules in place, such as not doing it when you're going to drive or operate machinery - a rule that exists with alcohol and advice that typically comes with most medicines.”
This probably seems especially biased cherry picking from me now, not showing any ‘cogent’ responses that are against my viewpoint, but up until now, there literally weren’t any, with the possible exception of this: “How can special goggles make a person know what it feels like to be high? If the people aren't actually high then this is all just for entertainment and has no real world value.” Their logic is actually good, but as I had to repeat several times later in this debate, nobody in the video claimed that this was what being high felt like. It simply caused wearers to have similar reaction times, hand eye coordination, etc. That is what was being simulated.
My first response:
“I agree with Steve. All for legalizing, but this OP seems to be of the opinion that it should be legal to smoke and drive. It's a fad to imply there are no downsides.
I've driven stoned once as a teen. Didn't crash but ran over a few curbs, and I drive like an old man in his cadillac - which is to say, very well. Full disclosure: I've only been stoned maybe a dozen times in my life. But being 'good' or 'practiced' in doing something unquestionably dangerous doesn't mean it should be legal.
No, it wasn't a scientific test, but they never claimed it was. They certainly overdid it, like a D.A.R.E. officer would, but who cares? No, they didn't lie and crying "fake news" to this segment will deservedly lose you credibility.”
Michael’s (the OP) response: “It is a lie that those goggles accurately simulate using cannabis. It's completely fraudulent, and the police definitely know better. Anyone who has ever used cannabis knows better.”
Me: “You're crying that it's fraudulent having never tried them yourself, completely ignorant of whether it is a good simulation or not. Ask yourself why you're doing that. Will you attempt to limit your bias, knowing now that it's there?”
I still have my experiment in the back of my mind; Whether knowing and recognizing biases will reign them in or if they would be more tempted to double down. This obviously wasn’t a good representation of that experiment, but I asked the question anyway.
Michael: “I know it's not a good simulant because cannabis use does not affect your eyesight.”
Me: “That isn't required for a simulation. To be extra pedantic, here's the definition of simulate:
"imitate the appearance or character of"
To make it easier, let's acknowledge imitate is synonymous with 'pretend'. Now let's say a young kid is walking around as though drunk. She tells you "uncle Michael! I'm pretending to be drunk! Hahahahaha" and then, of course, you give her a batman/Robin backhand and scream "NO YOU'RE NOT"
That's what this conversation is.”
Michael: “What a load of shit. This is the fucking POLICE and NEWS "pretending" not a child. When someone who is supposed to know better lies in an official capacity in an attempt to make a behavior appear worse than it is, that is fraud”
Me: “You still don't seem to understand. Have to head to work, but answer me this, just to be clear. What exactly was the lie you were referring to? How exactly is it a lie?”
Michael: “It is a lie to suggest that goggles which make your vision foggy and ruin your depth perception accurately simulate the effects of cannabis.”
Me: “"It is a lie to suggest that stumbling around is an accurate depiction of being drunk"
- uncle Michael
See why that doesn't work?”
Michael: “This is about flagrant misinformation being provided by the police and distributed by the media. Please show me evidence that these glasses accurately simulate or even imitate the effects of cannabis.
Me: “You're caught up on the word 'accurately'. Nowhere in the video did the woman say it was accurate to being high, 'just like it', 'closely resembles it', etc. It merely simulates it. The burden of proof is on you to show that they do NOT imitate driving stoned. Misinformation is false information, and relative statements are literally immune to being false. That's just the way opinion works - not my rules.”
That was largely how this subthread kept going - Michael and I arguing the relative nature of a ‘simulation’, and arguing the semantics of the word ‘lie’. Michael then tagged me in the main thread for some reason, to continue arguing there instead. I have my suspicions of why, but those are very arrogant for me to think. :p
Michael: “You mean to tell me that not a single person involved in the manufacture, design, distribution, testing, training, advertising, or media presentation for these glasses has ever used cannabis? You mean to tell me not one of those news reporters ever used cannabis? Of course not. They are LYING. Now, maybe you don't care if the police and news lie. Maybe you think, like Brent does, that since 'simulation' does not have a specific meaning, you can claim anything 'simulates' anything and not be lying. But from where I stand, if you give someone electoshocks and say that 'simulates' receiving oral sex, I'm going to call you a liar.”
Me: “I'm genuinely surprised that this page isn't doing a better job at recognizing their own biases, calling relative statements lies. You're angry because you like weed and justifiably want the stigma against it to go away. Hence, anything that makes weed look negative is automatically 'fake news'. The meanings of 'true' and 'false' have gotten skewed over the past year. We're losing the ability to properly define them.”
Dana: “Considering they showed video of what it looks like through the glasses (you obviously didn't watch it), yes, I can dispute it.”
Me: “Dana, if you shoot video looking into 3d glasses, you will not see any effects at all. Why did I even need to explain that? Is that the root of this debate? People think that what they saw in the video is accurate to what the wearer actually experiences??”
Michael: “Brent Wiseman, cannabis use does not affect your eyesight or depth perception. The video, which it is becoming increasingly obvious you have not even viewed, claims that the goggles 'simulate' those effects from cannabis.”
Me: “I think you're willfully ignoring the purpose of a simulation. No shit, smoking weed doesn't make your vision foggy. That doesn't invalidate the simulation. Simulations seek to find new mediums to imitate whatever it is you want to imitate. If you could use the same mediums, you wouldn't need a simulation. So, you influence other things so that the outcomes are similar. In this case, fuck with depth perception, vision, etc. No, it's NOT like being high, but the amount that it impairs your driving is similar, which was the entire point of the simulation. I just have a mental image of you putting on these goggles and screaming "I DON'T FEEL STONED AT ALL!!! WHAT HORSESHIT!!"
Michael: “I have spent literally hundreds if not thousands of hours playing music, playing sports, and driving off road, - as millions of people have - under various levels of cannabis 'intoxication', and I have never experienced anything like wearing foggy glasses designed to fuck with your depth perception. In all my first-hand experience with cannabis, combined with all the anecdotal information I have obtained from every other person who reported cannabis use to me, not one time has anyone ever suggested cannabis made their vision foggy or made them wildly unable to judge distances.”
Me: “I'll refer you again to my comment explaining what a simulation is. Nobody on this thread or in the video said that smoking pot will cause you to have foggy vision.”
Michael: “It's not a matter of opinion. Cannabis use DOES NOT fuck with your eyesight. It DOES NOT drastically impair your depth perception. It does not make simple motor functions next to impossible to perform. Someone who claims cannabis has those effects is LYING.”
Me: “They never claimed the effects that the glasses create is similar to weed. You want so badly to believe they did, but they didn't. The results are what matters to simulations. No, weed doesn't impair vision. That has been established by both of us several times now.”
Michael: “Brent Wiseman, if you watched the video you are arrogantly posturing about, you would have seen that among the first things the on-scene reporter says is "these goggles simulate the effects of cannabis use". That is a LIE.”
Me: “I don't know this for certain, but here's how I imagine they probably created these goggles: They look at data like how much higher your chance of crashing is when high. They create goggles with various impairments (regardless of what those impairments are) that cause wearers to crash at roughly that same rate. That is a simulation. One of the reasons I'm guessing you're so incensed is that the reporter was particularly bad - possibly even exaggerating. Shitty reporting, but that doesn't make the simulation a lie.”
George: “So if I say carrying around ten ferrets simulates being paralysed...that's what? A lie or the truth?”
Me: “Is an opinion a lie or a truth?”
George: “I’m waiting for you to answer”
Me: “I’m requesting your advice.”
George: “I advise you to answer.”
Me: “I suppose, then, I’ll give the obvious answer that opinion is outside the bounds of truth or false.”
Michael: “If you are an authority on paralysis or ferrets, and you go on TV saying that carrying ferrets simulates being paralyzed, you are lying. Or you are unintentionally using the word "simulates" in a very misleading way which will likely be misunderstood by your audience.”
Me: “Then call it misleading, Michael, not a lie. Say that you don't like the simulation. That you don't agree with their methods. That your experiences haven't produced the same results as the simulation. That the media is biased. That the goggles don't do a good enough job. If you call it a lie, though, you are engaging in a poison that has taken America. That's not what 'lie' means. I value very highly truth, and when you're creating your own definitions for the word 'false', I take offense.”
Michael: “Lie or mistake, it is definitely NOT TRUE. And I have a problem with the media spreading untruths introduced by the police.”
Me: “What isn't true? That it's a simulation of being high?
I have a problem with media spreading lies as well. This wasn't one of those times. We NEED clear definitions of truth and false, lies and honesty. Otherwise we get stupid politicians calling global warming fake news even though thousands of published peer reviewed reports exist or dunces claiming vaccines cause autism in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Genuinely harmful denial based on what they WISH to believe.”
And that was the last I heard from him for tonight.
Back to my subthread, a comment appeared from someone I recognized - one of several admins - who has shown very rational thought in previous threads:
Sela: “A control group driving unaltered for several months and then tracking them comprably driving the same routes stoned, short term...long term...and comparing the results is a study that elicits facts. All those defendibg this pony show are actual idiots.”
Me: “I’m not defending methodology. I’m defending the definition of ‘lie’.”
Sela: “Right. That's what I'm saying. If it isn't a credible study...the claimed results are a lie. They have isolated data on one person in goggles. The leap to THC effect on eye, hand, and perception coordination was not part of this exercise.”
Me: “ I disagree. They never made a demonstrably untrue statement. They never claimed 'everyone who smokes will drive this poorly', 'our methodology is perfect', 'news stories are a credible source of scientific validity', etc. I think many of the people here are getting bent out of shape largely because they are afraid (understandably) that the people completely ignorant of the effect of weed who see this will come to a more negative conclusion of the drug than is warranted, making them more aggressively opposed to the tv spot than is also warranted. You also could have just flat out said that me, specifically, you find idiotic, seeing as how I seem to be the only one arguing this side.”
And that’s the last I’ve heard in that one. She is being far more rational than the rest, but you have to understand that this was a local news story. At no point did they refer to it as a ‘study’. It was a 3ish minute video with a woman trying on these goggles, driving, and showing how that played out. There was no opportunity for it to be a lie. The network endorsed no conclusion other than ‘You shouldn’t drive while high’. That, itself, is an opinion, but nobody even tried to argue that with me.
*until now: Next day sequel with new and old beloved characters!:
Carrie: "opinions are not facts"
Me: " Climate scientists make conclusions based on evidence. Data has shown how much more likely you are to crash when high. You really shouldn't even be taking offense to this. Are you really arguing it should be legal to be stoned and drive? Are you arguing you don't get any worse driving when stoned? "
Michael: " Show me the data about crash rates after cannabis use. When you give up on that, show me the evidence which compares the impairment from cannabis to the types of effects these goggles produce."
Me: " You're avoiding answering the question."
Michael: "Being tired makes you you worse driver. Talking on the phone makes you a worse driver. Taking pain medicine or sleep aids can make you a worse driver.I am not arguing about the would-be legality of any action. Laws are not even part of this discussion. My point is about the news and police promoting false information. "
Carrie: " If you think that this can do that then you need to give actual evidence. "
Michael: " Show this data or GTFO."
Me: "Didn't you even admit that weed affects reaction time and motor functions or something? You call it false information because you are willfully ignoring what a simulation is. How many times have you and others here indignantly argued that weed doesn't affect vision? "
Carrie: " Evidence.... Do you have it or not? "
Michael: " Weed does not affect vision. The goggles do. That alone makes it an inaccurate comparison. The police KNOW it is not an accurate comparison. That means when they say the goggles "simulate driving after using cannabis", they are LYING. "
Sela: " Brent Wiseman, source for crashes while high stats please... "
People used to boards like this might recognize what the above is. It is a warning from an admin more than anything. I am fairly certain she desperately wanted to boot me from the group at this point - not that she was out of line at all to request a source. It's a good rule. Admins are no saints, though. If they don't like someone they will feel no guilt at abusing their power. I can't really say she did, exactly, as a source was requested of me, but I think she was counting on me not finding anything within a reasonable amount of time. Luckily, less than 10 seconds after she posted this, I pasted in a link. You can read the page I linked here, but the TLDR:
"Surveys that established recent use of cannabis by directly measuring THC in blood showed that THC positives, particularly at higher doses, are about three to seven times more likely to be responsible for their crash as compared to drivers that had not used drugs or alcohol. "
You would think that this would be a BOOM! moment, but no such thing occurred. They failed on this promising avenue of attack, much to their chagrin, so they switched back to their previous arguments that weed doesn't cause foggy vision and such. Nobody ever again argued my claim that driving stoned was inherently more dangerous than sober, save for one comment which I read as a bit resentful and indignant response by Sela to my comment directly following my link:
Me: "Just to be clear, I'm really the only one arguing driving while stoned is inherently more dangerous than driving sober?"
Sela: "Yes"
Sela was never seen again. *whistles X-Files theme*
Michael: " The news report in the OP did not claim "driving high is not as safe as driving sober".The news report in the OP claims "these particular goggles simulate the experience of driving after cannabis use.".THAT is the claim in question. THAT is what I would like you to provide evidence supporting.OR you could just admit that claim is wildly false and avoid wasting all our time. "
This is the epitome of bias argument in my eyes. To support my argument that the outcome of the goggle simulation was correct, making the simulation not false, I pointed out that there is data to support the idea that stoned drivers are verifiably worse at doing so. They (understandably) asked for sources for that data. Michael, especially, goaded me and said the words "when you give up on that", implying I'd never find anything. It was the 3rd result from google. The first two I couldn't use only because they were experiments based on THC AND alcohol instead of just THC. After I posted the link, he quickly backtracks, implying the data is irrelevant because it wasn't what the news report claimed, even though he had literally demanded I produce a source for that exact data only minutes earlier. Then, he is back to his old lovable tricks of misunderstanding the word 'simulate'.
Me: " Smoking verifiably makes you a worse driver. These goggles verifiably make you a worse driver. I'm not anti-marijuana in any way, but pretending weed has no downsides is foolish. The main thing I take offense to, though, is the perverting of the definition of 'lie'. Call it a shit simulation. Don't hijack 'lie' for your own ends. "
The next many comments were Michael, Carrie, and George restating their previous arguments: that being high doesn't affect vision, it's not an accurate simulation, etc. Skipping ahead:
Me: "Do you deny smoking makes you a worse driver?"
Michael: " Whether or not cannabis use makes you a 'worse driver' is NOT THE FUCKING POINT.The claim is that the specific effects the goggles produce are significantly similar to the effects of cannabis. And that is OBVIOUSLY false. "
Me: " You pointedly didn't answer again. No, that is not the god damn claim dude. How many times do I have to say this? The specific effect the goggles produce is foggy vision and shit. The effect they simulate is that you become not as good at driving. How you produce that outcome is irrelevant in simulations. What I think you're actually angry about is that non-users will make the mistake of thinking smoking literally affects your vision.
Matt: " " It is a valid simulation that makes people worse at driving."Really? So someone that smokes marijuana would score worse on an eye exam? "
Me: " I have no idea. Would they? "
Matt: " Nope, marijuana does not effect vision. The lie you are defending is easily proven wrong by an eye exam. "
Me: " Oh, I get where you're going now. For fuck sake, smoking doesn't affect vision. We know this. "
Skipping several of nearly the same comments from others worded a slightly different way as they had been previously.
Me: " Nobody has definitively denied any of these statements: You don't drive as well when high. Driving stoned should be illegal. Any brave soul want to take those on without skirting them? THAT is the point of the simulation. To show this. You call it a lie when it accurately portrays both of those things. "
Michael: " The news report says "These goggles (which mess with your vision) simulate driving on cannabis". That is not claiming smoking messes with your vision? Really?"
Me: " YES, really. Outcome is the point of simulations. "
The next several was more of the same with a bit of shit-talking on the company that makes the goggles as well. I was out for a bit while visiting family. When I had come back, I realized I should have done this long ago:
Me: " It's clear neither of us will convince the other. You're improperly using the word 'lie'. Nobody claimed or implied smoking literally messes with your vision and I have to believe you're intentionally misunderstanding the word simulation to support your argument. You're angry only because it doesn't make marijuana look good so feel obliged to rag on it out of loyalty. Evidence shows driving while stoned is more dangerous, and that was the only implication of the video. That is not false or a lie no matter what you wish so badly to believe. I hope they legalize recreational smoking everywhere, but while driving should very obviously be illegal. I don't see any benefit from further discussion. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. You win - I'm out."
FIN
I'm not sure why, in situations like these, it is psychologically required to restate your argument as concisely as possible before jumping out. It felt a bit... childish. But what can 'ya do? Had to be done. There was a bit more shit-talking on me afterwards, but less than I would have guessed. I think maybe 15 or so different people argued directly against me over the course of the post. They were bolstered by each other, as well as a retinue of unheard people simply 'liking' their posts. None of what I said received any 'likes'. *forever alone* I just want to get you an accurate picture of the post. Better yet, here's a perfectly accurate representation:
Without, of course, the aid Jon Snow received. Yes, yes. Very narcissistic/self-important/self-serving/megolomanical of me. I thought it was quite funny.
So, what is the point? A while ago I wrote about misinformation. The effect that Trump was having on America. I believe that post is titled “The United States of Misinformation”. I was generally worried about the path we were on. The growing tendency to call anything we don’t like ‘fake news’. If we had this debate 2 years ago, fake news would never have been uttered. As I said, I don’t have a problem with them disagreeing with it - I have a problem with them changing the definition of ‘lie’ to ‘anything they don’t want to hear’. Today, that tendency has gotten worse - enough to permeate even trivial internet posts like this. Enough to corrupt the minds of some of those who should be least susceptible to it - philosophers, albeit amateur. I think I should have led with my last comment to Michael. We absolutely need clear definitions of truth and false. Those definitions are holy to me. It’s like the words themselves have ablative shields that are slowly being blasted away by those who can’t handle being wrong. It’s now a defense mechanism to simply hijack the words for your own ends, even if not rational, correct, or justified. Soon, truth could lose all meaning, since it could easily become synonymous with simply ‘my personal belief’.
That is the thought that drew me into this conversation, but there is a bit more to say of it. This page has been fairly even-headed for a Facebook group. The only times I’ve seen so many turn vicious was in response to a blatant asshole, someone who is claiming the Earth is flat, we’re all going to Hell, etc. I suppose I could just be an asshole, but the shit talk had already started before I entered the conversation - it was simply focused at news/cops instead. Also, I never personally attacked anyone, even after receiving such. The closest I came was referring to Michael's arguments as ‘crying’ and telling him that calling it fake news would damage his credibility, etc. That’s not too terribly dickish.
So, I was verbally attacked quite a bit. Called stupid, no common sense, an asshole, an idiot (several times), etc. That kind of thing doesn’t get under my skin, but again, coming from this group was disappointing. However, I found it extremely interesting as well. Those who were most outspoken about my idiocy were those who, by their own admission, smoked a lot. Obviously, they highly valued marijuana. Michael’s premise - that a simulation of driving high was somehow a ‘lie’ and ‘fake news’ - was clearly motivated by bias. I’m good with biases. I understand them. I’m fascinated by them. Something that I’ve maintained but never had such a worthy anecdote to support, is that people will demonize you in their minds if they disagree with you in order to attack you without guilt. I never said anything particularly curt in my comments, yet I was personally attacked. I’m assuming, of course, that they were angry, as cool-headed people usually don’t feel the need for personal attacks. Angry, or more likely, almost fearfully defensive. So why would they be so angry at a mere disagreement? I am entranced by the question.
The effect of bias is astounding to me. He did claim at one point that he’s better driving when high, as did many other commenters (kind of frightening), but nobody came out and said that it should be legal to smoke when driving, only (very) indirectly implied it. I expect this is an interesting case of cognitive dissonance. They know it shouldn’t be legal, but they really want it to be. They can’t say it should be legal or that it’s safe to drive high as that would damage their credibility, but they CAN throw shade on the simulation. They can be overtly protective of marijuana’s reputation, even when caution is rational. Just like your best friend can always stick up for you “even when they know you’re wrong”. Thank you, Train.
I had to cut out quite a lot, but you saw how they constantly ignored the purpose of a simulation, that we fucking know weed doesn’t obscure vision, etc, yet these points KEPT being brought up, sometimes on literally the subsequent comment after I point that out. I was genuinely amazed that I was speaking to grown adults at times. I have found immeasurable benefits to studying philosophy, but one downside is that you become very acquainted with the word and feeling of bemusement.
The final note on this post that I must address: How can I believe I am correct when I was the only one? How am I certain? I have said in previous writings that people should really use the rest of the world as a resource. Almost everybody has several beliefs that are incorrect. Almost everybody has had the thought "The rest/most of the world is crazy. I'm the only sane soul on this Earth.". Much of the time (notably, not all), despite their fervent insistence that they are absolutely certain, they turn out to be wrong.
So, what can I do to combat this observation? I can argue without bias. That is the goal. I am trying my best to remain, at all times, rational. Argue solely based on evidence. Doing so will not guarantee that I'm always right, but I will never feel foolish for a position I held without bias if I turn out to be incorrect. If one of those who sparred with me the past two days who claimed they were better drivers while high end up crashing while stoned, the obvious cause of which is poor driving on their part, what comfort will they have? "I was wrong but I argued for this because it was what I wished to believe."? I pity them that moment. No. That isn't acceptable to me. If ever I am wrong, my goal in life is to have the ability to say "I was wrong but I argued what I did solely due to what evidence was available and made my conclusion based on it." THAT is a true philosopher, in my eyes.
And, to end: I should just accept that you can’t have a blog or write about philosophy without sounding inherently arrogant, let alone do both. So be it.
Comments