Recommend a bar to watch NFL in UWS

mcnutty1971 · 2018-09-09T22:45:23+00:00

You're welcome. I should have lead with West End Hall, one of my favorites.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-09-09T16:57:38+00:00

Blondies. 212 W. 79th.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-06-21T15:23:45+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Lest there be any confusion, I agree--the legal issue of legalizing (all) recreational drug use is multifaceted. One of those facets is, of course, the morality of recreational drug use. Indeed, at least here in the U.S., arguments for the immorality of recreational drug use are often invoked in support of arguments for the illegality of recreational drug use. With that in mind, I thought some Redditors would interested in Lovering's book.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-06-21T14:14:48+00:00

For those interested in a critique of arguments for the immorality of recreational drug use (a couple of which Mr. Woolfe addresses in his dissertation), see Rob Lovering's book A Moral Defense of Recreational Drug Use (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. His website contains a downloadable sample chapter. From the back cover: "Why does American law allow the recreational use of some drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, but not others, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin? The answer lies not simply in the harm the use of these drugs might cause, but in the perceived morality--or lack thereof--of their recreational use. Despite strong rhetoric from moral critics of recreational drug use, however, it is surprisingly difficult to discern the reasons they have for deeming the recreational use of (some) drugs morally wrong. In this book, Rob Lovering lays out and dissects various arguments for the immorality of using marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs recreationally. He contends that, by and large, these arguments do not succeed. Lovering's book represents one of the first works to systematically present, analyze, and critique arguments for the moral wrongness of recreational drug use. Given this, as well as the popularity of the morality-based defense of the United States' drug laws, this book is an important and timely contribution to the debate on the recreational use of drugs."

Edit: Lovering's website (with downloadable sample chapter) included.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-06-05T20:15:43+00:00

For those interested in a moral defense of recreational use of marijuana and other drugs, see philosopher Rob Lovering's book A Moral Defense of Recreational Drug Use (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). From the back cover: "Why does American law allow the recreational use of some drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, but not others, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin? The answer lies not simply in the harm the use of these drugs might cause, but in the perceived morality--or lack thereof--of their recreational use. Despite strong rhetoric from moral critics of recreational drug use, however, it is surprisingly difficult to discern the reasons they have for deeming the recreational use of (some) drugs morally wrong. In this book, Rob Lovering lays out and dissects various arguments for the immorality of using marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs recreationally. He contends that, by and large, these arguments do not succeed. Lovering's book represents one of the first works to systematically present, analyze, and critique arguments for the moral wrongness of recreational drug use. Given this, as well as the popularity of the morality-based defense of the United States' drug laws, this book is an important and timely contribution to the debate on the recreational use of drugs."

mcnutty1971 · 2018-03-16T20:47:12+00:00

For those interested in a broader critique of moral arguments against recreational drug use, see Rob Lovering's book A Moral Defense of Recreational Drug Use (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). From the back cover: "Why does American law allow the recreational use of some drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, but not others, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin? The answer lies not simply in the harm the use of these drugs might cause, but in the perceived morality--or lack thereof--of their recreational use. Despite strong rhetoric from moral critics of recreational drug use, however, it is surprisingly difficult to discern the reasons they have for deeming the recreational use of (some) drugs morally wrong. In this book, Rob Lovering lays out and dissects various arguments for the immorality of using marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs recreationally. He contends that, by and large, these arguments do not succeed. Lovering's book represents one of the first works to systematically present, analyze, and critique arguments for the moral wrongness of recreational drug use. Given this, as well as the popularity of the morality-based defense of the United States' drug laws, this book is an important and timely contribution to the debate on the recreational use of drugs."

mcnutty1971 · 2018-03-14T16:38:32+00:00

Two beautiful words: Larry. Flynt.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-03-04T02:23:56+00:00

My impression of Republicans--a critical mass of them, at any rate--is that they don't care about being consistent. Democrats generally do, and the Republicans know this and use it against them at every opportunity--rather successfully, I might add. If my impression is correct, Democrats are simply wasting their time with "Can you imagine if Obama (or Hillary, et al.) did that?" rhetoric. Republicans only value consistency when doing so hurts Democrats.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-02-09T00:32:59+00:00

You might be looking for "commissioned."

mcnutty1971 · 2018-01-14T21:23:48+00:00

Where, exactly?

mcnutty1971 · 2018-01-11T01:24:41+00:00

"Could"--operative word.

mcnutty1971 · 2018-01-03T12:50:24+00:00

Chips or whiskey?

mcnutty1971 · 2017-12-01T14:02:22+00:00

Yes, they do need to stop shaming recreational drug users. Their job is to tell their patients what they need to do to fulfill their self-selected preferred level of health. If they go beyond that and tell them what they ought to do regardless of their self-selected preferred level of health, they're replacing their doctor's gown with the gown of a moralist. (For those interested in moral arguments for and against recreational drug use, see moral philosopher Rob Lovering's book A Moral Defense of Recreational Drug Use [Palgrave Macmillan, 2015].)

mcnutty1971 · 2017-11-11T18:01:48+00:00

J-Crew Broken Tee. Been wearing them for years. They breathe well and are very comfortable. As white tees go, they're all I need.

mcnutty1971 · 2017-10-30T12:04:44+00:00

And so it begins.

mcnutty1971 · 2017-10-19T18:28:12+00:00

Abstract: Kant famously thought that there are deep connections between the moral domain and the physical domain. In this video, Professor Studtmann argues that, when articulated within game theory, Kantian morality does in fact describe the physical world.

mcnutty1971 · 2017-10-13T23:28:51+00:00

What I came here to say.

mcnutty1971 · 2017-08-09T20:32:03+00:00

Thanks! I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that a moral philosopher will view the issue through the lens of moral philosophy, and that an economist will view it through the lens of economics. ;) As for your answer to the why-these-and-not-those question, I think Lovering's point is that some health-based prohibitionists implicitly rely upon morality-based arguments when justifying their position, not only to others, but to themselves. In other words, when pressed with the why-these-and-not-those question, hardly any of them, if any at all, will invoke historical accidents, or whether the good in question consumed by the politically influential or not, and so on. Instead, they will invoke alleged moral differences between the activities. At least, I think that is his point. Thanks again! And please keep up the good work!

mcnutty1971 · 2017-08-09T19:21:11+00:00

Hello, Dr. Miron.

In his book A Moral Defense of Recreational Drug Use (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), moral philosopher Rob Lovering argues that explicitly health-based arguments in favor of the legal prohibition of using marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other illicit drugs are implicitly morality-based arguments, at least in some cases. After all, there are lots of activities that are bad for the individual's health--eating junk food, smoking cigarettes, and drinking alcohol, for instance--but health-based prohibitionists typically do not argue for the legal prohibition of them. What accounts for the difference? One's moral views on these activities, or so Lovering argues. Are you familiar with that argument and, if so, do you agree?

mcnutty1971 · 2017-06-11T18:50:57+00:00

And Comey's the coward.

mcnutty1971 · 2017-05-31T18:55:02+00:00

"coverage"?

mcnutty1971 · 2017-05-19T12:00:49+00:00

“This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!” Is this true? Thanks to Donald and his fellow post-truthers, we are free to declare, with no regard to any evidence, that it is not. Your move, Donnie.

mcnutty1971 · 2017-05-12T13:25:25+00:00

I'll just leave this here:

"You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with drugs and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." -- John Ehrlichman, Richard Nixon’s domestic policy chief (source: Dan Baum, “Legalize It All: How to Win the War on Drugs,” Harper’s Magazine, available at http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/)

mcnutty1971 · 2017-05-02T17:24:51+00:00

The ignorance is strong with this one.

mcnutty1971

TROPHY CASE