I can't believe you said that!!!!!
 

I must say I'm missing the hot debates in Secular connections. Has anyone got anything controversial to argue over?

LOL at Monty Python’s Argument Clinic link!

On that note.......I’m not allowed to argue, unless you pay!

On a serious note - I believe that the statement that ‘a person has the power to stop drinking’ is incontrovertible, here in Secular Connections.

No it isn't.

:lmao

the cat in the box is alive/dead/both/neither - discuss.

https://s13.postimg.org/vk5n3k8s7/cat_in_a_box.jpg

I totally agree with you, Tatsy.




We'll, that didn't work.:)

It's alive. I can see it.

In Schroedinger's case however, until the box is opened, both. And equally so.

The late great Terry Pratchett mentions another possible state:

In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.

OK, here's a controversial question:

Is it true to say that reasonable people will all agree on any issue?

My view is that the more reasonable you are the more you will disagree with everyone else because we all come from a different starting point.

Appears both alive and dead to me. That cat is a zombie, evidenced by the staring eyes.

Sorry Trohyn, my choice of question seems to have stopped your thread in its tracks. Maybe it wasn't as controversial as I thought! I'll retract my question then to make way for another one :)

No Aleric, it's my fault. I kinda thew the grenade into the forum then ran away. I had things to do.
Your question is sneaky. I would say that most people consider themselves "reasonable", therefore if I disagree with your statement;
Is it true to say that reasonable people will all agree on any issue?, You will counter that I'm being unreasonable.

If it appeared to be sneaky it's probably because of the way I phrased it! Reading it back it does sound like a kind of paradox but what I mean to say was when we look at something we're all generally faced with the same facts but usually come to very different conclusions. So why is that? If we based our conclusions on reason alone then we should all come to the same view but clearly we hardly ever do.

I think the question is controversial because it does suggest that there is limit to what reason or rationality can tell us about something. For example with addiction, can we ever find our way out using pure reason alone or do we at some point just have to accept that we really don't know what the best thing to do is but we nevertheless have to decide on a recovery method to adopt and we do this largely on an intuitive basis, on what feels most right for us?

reasonable as in being of moderate opinions & not inclined towards conflict? or reasonable as in inclined towards reason/rationality?

& is the nature of the issue able to be determined objectively - is the sky blue? is that cat bloody furious? or is it subjective - is <your choice of political ideology> the best way to run a country? is <your choice of recovery method> the best method of sobriety?

I mean reasonable in your second sense of being rational, and not necessarily moderate.

I also think that the effectiveness of a recovery method can't be determined objectively. I was just wondering if this was true or whether in fact it can be measured in some way.

Recovery is measured quite objectively, either one has quit or one hasn't.

Any journey or path along the way to the goal , recovery as a method, is pure AV experienced subjectively.

I agree that you can objectively measure whether an individual is recovered or not: they are either drinking or they're not.

I was wondering though whether you can objectively compare and contrast different recovery models or is it just a matter of personal preference.

Not on this forum as far identifying and contrasting.

What do you mean by effectiveness?

That query is ,btw, rhetorical, effectiveness is AV as it implies an alternative to quitting, the possiblity of more drinks.

That's why my question was about whether it is possible in principle to compare the effectiveness of different recovery methods. It was not asking for any actual comparisons to be made,

By effectiveness I mean proven results and I agree , I don't think that makes much sense in this context.

The idea that one can not 'just' make a commitment to permanent , unconditional abstinence is AV.
Any method or system or whatever you want to call it that is based on the idea that that requires anything other than making that decision is a method to avoid making the commitment or at best paying lip service to the idea of a commitment, but at the same time negating it is a commitment by setting conditions on adherence.