Right, like smoking in front of a baby (and exposing them to second-hand smoke). I guess that’s a good example. But that’s more to do with the way you’re going about doing the drugs, rather than the drug use itself as an inherent component, I suppose.

Oh, absolutely. I have no problem with other people doing recreational drugs. I see it as entirely their choice as it only really affects them personally. I don’t think it’s immoral or “sinful” (whatever that really means) or whatever.

And I think most people do respect that. I do appreciate these responses that make it clear that we should respect if someone either does or doesn’t want to consume recreational drugs.

But I really was just looking for a term to explain abstinence of recreational drugs to people who I know won’t judge or care, but without the baggage or misunderstandings that may come with saying “sober” (possible assumption: former/recovering alcoholic/addict), “teetotal” (possible misunderstanding: doesn’t use alcohol, might still be fine with other recreational drugs), or “straight edge” (possible misunderstanding: not only doesn’t consume drugs, but also is into the punk music scene).

After gathering data, the best term I could come up with is quite a simple one: “drug-free”. To be clear, we could say “recreational drug-free”, though that’s rather wordy and the meaning of “recreational drugs” is often understood by just saying “drugs” anyway.

I know you didn’t ask but I just thought I’d say this anyway lol.

Interesting, other responses here say it’s the other way round, with morality being more societally-derived and ethics being either more personally interpreted, or more practical/logical in spite of culturally conventional moral ideas.

Part of why I asked this question is because I seem to see morality and ethics defined to mean the opposite of each other in different places, and this kind of proves that to be the case lol

I completely agree. Would you, in theory, be in support of giving rights to all sentient beings where possible, ensuring the best possible treatment and experiences of all individuals that have a conscious/subjective experience of life?

I would ideally like to see humanity extend moral/ethical consideration beyond humans to all animals, hypothetical alien animals, sentient AI, or any other sentients that emerged in future. I believe sentientism is the core underlying philosophy behind this idea of ethics.

Thanks for your reply. :)

Wouldn’t ethics then define right and wrong in terms of its impact on the well-being of sentient beings, rather than just human well-being?

And I suppose the difference with morality might be that certain actions that don’t necessarily negatively impact other sentient beings, such as recreational drug use, might still be considered immoral by some due to cultural norms rather than practical considerations about the rightness or wrongness of them?

So then the raw vegan influencer that starved herself to death, how isn’t that proof that vegan diets are unhealthy? She was only having juice smoothies and not drinking any water.

Thanks, and this is proof that vegan diets are unhealthy, right?

Thanks so much for that, I really appreciate it!

I hope this is alright to ask, but do you agree with why they removed the post? Or would there be a way to appeal a removal in a case like this, when the reason given for removal doesn’t seem to reflect the content? It doesn’t seem accurate to me at all.

The reason given was this, from moderator candyman337 who commented:

“Locking this thread because this question seems to be inviting people to express ideologies of eugenics and that’s a big nono.”

This mod’s comment received 4 downvotes.

I suppose they removed it completely after that, and I was able to find a reason listed as “super toxic comments” (the comments don’t seem toxic to me at all, but I suppose that’s subjective).

But with regard to the eugenics reason… uhhh what? I read the comments and there is no discussion of eugenics, and my question posed in the post also didn’t relate to or encourage discussion of eugenics at all.

I found one comment that mentioned eugenics and that’s it, and it seemed to be deemed by others to be as unrelated to the topic as I found it, since this comment received 3 downvotes and was left with a score of -2:

“this is eugenicist propaganda.”

The comment this ‘eugenicist propaganda’ comment was in response to:

“Just because you are made uncomfortable by a comparison does not invalidate it, nor should it be shunned unless it is factually incorrect. In many places the disabled and mentally ill are treated like animals or worse. Unfortunately alot of the world does not fall under our idea of “humane” and that should be recognized and utilized as a data point.”

I fail to understand how that comment had anything to do with eugenics, and then shortly after the mod locked the thread saying that my question was encouraging discussions of eugenics, based on that one person’s seemingly irrelevant comment.

This doesn’t seem fair to me, and it makes me wonder if just one single person commenting “this is eugenicist propaganda” in response to something that has nothing to do with that, will cause the whole post to be locked or removed, regardless of the topic?

Something tells me this mod was just looking for any reason to take down the post due to personal gripes with it, but I’m not claiming I know that. The reason really doesn’t make sense at all.

Sorry for the long comment and thanks again for the help!

“If it’s acceptable…” was the title. Thanks 🙂

Agreed. Another thing I would change is that I wasn’t alerted that the post had been removed, only saw that it was missing from my profile. And I only found the reason for the deletion once I used the backlog feature, which isn’t a feature that’s made immediately known to users (I only found it after researching).

So, the plants found a way to hijack the bees’ journey by putting some extra pollen on them to take to other flowers, since they’re already there taking pollen anyway? That’s awesome.