what would be the legal/social ramifications of a love potion

thinking man·Mar 30, 2018·6 votes·1,071 views

i think it could be considered rape depending on the interpretation and law system (common law wouldn't consider it rape, and current US definitions could be wriggled to acquit it)

however investigating such a crime would be extremely difficult because the victim doesnt present themselves as a case in need of investigation, being that they are in love and satisfied with the person that they have been made to love

my guess is that it would either exist as a crime rarely invoked because it is hard to prove, a substance so heavily cracked down upon that the risk massively outweighs the benefits, or something considered unsavory but ultimately a fact of life

this discussion is also kinda hard to quantify since we dont exactly know what the properties of a love potion would be (permanent or temporary, if the potion could be traced in blood/urine, etc)

discuss how you think it'd fit into our legal system and how it'd affect our courtship rituals, honestly you can be creative in what the properties of the love potion are but make it clear what you're talking about

i just had another thought that it could be on-par with slavery cuz you're breaking someone's personality and effectively making them beholden entirely to you

it could also be a therapeutic controlled substance where consenting couples take it as a form of therapy for their marriage, hm

49 Comments

NahuiMar 30, 20184 votes

It would be classified as rape, as love in the sense you're talking about is a higher cognitive function evolving from sexual companionship almost exclusively unique to humans. Therefore, to force love would be rape. It would be able to be tested via blood tests and perhaps other tests depending on what the compound was made of. It really wouldn't be hard to prove. The reason is that it would not be permanent because what you feel as love is a chemical reaction in your brain, and to force love would require a constant supply of this special "potion" to keep the facade going. Eventually, someone would slip up or somehow the treatment could not be reapplied, and while the chemical effects wear off, the memories remain.

The only case that it would not be rape is if a couple agreed to take it together for one reason or another, whether to keep a marriage going for kids, or for mutual gain from the relationship that is threatened by lack of emotion. Obviously it would be heavily outlawed, a black market would emerge for it, and it would just become another, more-insidious date-rape drug.

Leaf of the lakeMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Eventually, someone would slip up or somehow the treatment could not be reapplied, and while the chemical effects wear off, the memories remain.

Actually, herein lies the problem. The memories remain.

Our brain uses some black box process to arrive at the output we know as "behavior" using three specific inputs: 1) Sensory perception, the process of feeding raw information to the brain; 2) The physical makeup of the brain, which predisposes a person toward certain tendencies; and 3) Stored memories, which are the only way to alter our predisposed tendencies.

Holding the sensory organs and physical makeup of the brain as constants (both are purely biological), forming a ton of lovey-dovey memories while under the effects of such a drug would naturally cause the subject of affection to be evaluated positively within one's memories. Even if they're not physically attractive, and even if they exhibit otherwise repulsive behavior, the emotional bond has already been formed, albeit completely artificially. This would have wildly unpredictable effects after the drug wore off. With such rose-tinted memories, would they find themselves supporting behaviors that they wouldn't have before being exposed to the drug? Would they slowly fall out of love with the other person, leading to a heavily delayed breakup when they finally realize that there isn't a spark there? Would they immediately revert and become disgusted with themselves for having - even temporarily - approved such behavior?

Because there is still so much we don't know about how the human brain works, it is entirely possible that - if taken for a sufficiently long period of time - the effects of such a drug would become permanent. It's even possible that "a sufficiently long time" is only a single dose. We already know about the bridge effect, and misattribution of arousal. This creates something similar to a "love potion" using natural brain chemistry. With the bridge effect, feelings emerge for another person because they experience the physiological phenomenon of arousal, but rather than attributing it to the dangerous situation they're in, they end up attributing it to the person they're in the situation with. While they may not be strong feelings, the effect persists, and can tint how that other person is perceived from then on out, essentially causing you to view someone as a potential mate when you otherwise never would have done so. When you think of how many times more powerful an honest-to-goodness love potion would be, I sincerely doubt it's something you would have to constantly reapply. Perhaps if one is extremely incompatible with the subject, it would require reapplication at regular intervals, but I think in most cases, you would see a lasting effect with only one or two doses.

Otherwise, I agree with your analysis. It is absolutely something that would need to be made illegal. The problem is it would be difficult for the crime to ever come to light, since someone under its effects - even long after the initial dose wore off - would view the culprit positively.

TheRiddumMar 30, 20182 votes

well this is random

notFREEfoodMar 30, 20182 votes

If consent cannot be denied while under the effects of the love potion, then consent cannot be granted in the eyes of the law. The only way to legally have sex with someone after dosing them with a love potion is to obtain consent beforehand, and even then you're on shaky ground.

Irelia BotMar 30, 20181 votes

Really depends on how long it lasts and if the person knew what happened to them.

If it last a lifetime then I don't expect said victim to want anything to happen to the person who did it assuming the one they now love is the one who use it on them. In turn no charges filed.

If it was temporary then it would become a matter of learning it was used then proving it was actually used and not an act of foolishness, lust or something along those lines.

thinking manMar 30, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-03-30T05:59:54.912+0000)

Really depends on how long it lasts and if the person knew what happened to them.

If it last a lifetime then I don't expect said victim to want anything to happen to the person who did it assuming the one they now love is the one who use it on them. In turn no charges filed.

If it was temporary then it would become a matter of all proving it was actually used and not an act of foolishness, lust or something along those lines.

see that's what makes it so hard to make into a crime

it doesn't leave any clear victims because the victim is happy, even if insincerely so

in the case of a temporary one then i guess it's on par with most date rape drugs but you can get intimacy out of the person rather than just slaking your lust

ahferroin7Mar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-03-30T05:59:54.912+0000)

Really depends on how long it lasts and if the person knew what happened to them.

If it last a lifetime then I don't expect said victim to want anything to happen to the person who did it assuming the one they now love is the one who use it on them. In turn no charges filed.

If it was temporary then it would become a matter of learning it was used then proving it was actually used and not an act of foolishness, lust or something along those lines.

In most places in the world though, it's not the victim pressing criminal charges, it's the government. The whole concept of 'not pressing charges' amounts to telling the prosecutor you (as the victim) won't cooperate, which eliminates the primary witness and therefore makes it very difficult to actually convince a jury that a crime happened.

AnastaeciaMar 30, 20181 votes

you should have posted this 2 holidays ago

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81QLheanHoL.jpg

The context is that the boy is having hots for another girl (not the one in the pic), and this girl being such a good friend, introduces him to a "love potion".

Oh, and, don't ask me which manga it is. Let's just say I don't know the name...

.........

But really, to chemically trigger "love" is obviously never going to be allowed, due to the heavily negative social implications it will obviously come with.

You got people who either use the drug to abduct other people (rape or trafficking), you got people who will force feed the drug to others and basically put them on some sort of dependency, you will also get people who use it and end up with tons of random consequences like unplanned child and whatever (and if you think booze is bad, this is probably only going to be worse), but most importantly, you have the central concern on why you even need a drug for love in the first place, if not to forcefully induce an artificial sense of love on subjects who have little interest in you, which begs the question on why we even want such a product in the first place?

Irelia BotMar 30, 20182 votes

{quoted}

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81QLheanHoL.jpg

The context is that the boy is having hots for another girl (not the one in the pic), and this girl being such a good friend, introduces him to a "love potion".

Oh, and, don't ask me which manga it is. Let's just say I don't know the name...

.........

But really, to chemically trigger "love" is obviously never going to be allowed, due to the heavily negative social implications it will obviously come with.

You got people who either use the drug to abduct other people (rape or trafficking), you got people who will force feed the drug to others and basically put them on some sort of dependency, you got people who either use the drug to abduct other people, you will also get people who use it and end up with tons of random consequences like unplanned child and whatever, but most importantly, you have the central concern on why you even need a drug for love in the first place, if not to forcefully induce an artificial love on subjects who have little interest in you?

But male sweat has already been linked to chemically increasing females instinct to mate...

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:17:41.653+0000)

But male sweat has already been linked to chemically increasing females instinct to mate.

The "love potion", if it's going to be a product, it's only going to be stronger than male sweat, otherwise there is no point for the product to even exist (unless just a treatment option for men who somehow has no such effect in their sweat or something, though I'd imagine most men even if they do have the condition, would still just see the product as pointless). And if it's actually very much effective and as potent and instant as we imagine it to be, then it directly raises the concerns I mentioned above.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing.

Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion.

I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree.

Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I hurt you in some way?

What's the difference between negatively influencing the life of someone and positively influencing the life of someone? If it's illegal to positively influence others' lives, where does the line get drawn? Should it be illegal to make someone else smile because you've essentially altered the way that they feel, temporary or otherwise?

This takes us back around to the love potion and most of the arguments being presented are outside of the scope of the perspective of the people in the scenario in question.

If you were under the effects of the love potion. You are not being raped when said person is having sex with you. You are consenting to that sex because you're in love with that person. You are not a slave to that person because you are, again, consenting to what it is that they're asking.

Spin this around and apply it to traditional relationships today. Forget there's a love potion for a moment. Are you being raped when you're in love with someone and you consent to having sex with them? Are you a slave to someone if they ask you to do something and you consent to do that something?

If not, wherein lies the difference?

Is it a crime to make better the state of another human being?

SEKAIMar 30, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000)

Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing.

Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion.

I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree.

Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I hurt you in some way?

What's the difference between negatively influencing the life of someone and positively influencing the life of someone? If it's illegal to positively influence others' lives, where does the line get drawn? Should it be illegal to make someone else smile because you've essentially altered the way that they feel, temporary or otherwise?

This takes us back around to the love potion and most of the arguments being presented are outside of the scope of the perspective of the people in the scenario in question.

If you were under the effects of the love potion. You are not being raped when said person is having sex with you. You are consenting to that sex because you're in love with that person. You are not a slave to that person because you are, again, consenting to what it is that they're asking.

Spin this around and apply it to traditional relationships today. Forget there's a love potion for a moment. Are you being raped when you're in love with someone and you consent to having sex with them? Are you a slave to someone if they ask you to do something and you consent to do that something?

If not, wherein lies the difference?

Is it a crime to make better the state of another human being?

It is not "made better" if it is deception and delusion.

EDIT: Similar reason why sniffing drug everyday or something is clearly a bad thing.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20182 votes

{quoted}

It is not "made better" if it is deception and delusion.

But that's 100% of all human relationships.

If I gave you $100 million dollars, would you be happy?

Irelia BotMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:45:51.911+0000)

But that's 100% of all human relationships.

If I gave you $100 million dollars, would you be happy?

The act of gaining currency in and of itself would not make me happy but the though of what I could do with it would.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:47:47.967+0000)

The act of gaining currency in and of itself would not make me happy but the though of what I could do with it would.

Alright. Unknown to you, I got that $100 million dollars by slaughtering women and children in other countries for X company.

Through completely unethical practices, by proxy, I have bettered the lives of others.

Do those lives cease to be bettered because the means in which that money was obtained was unethical?

Irelia BotMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:56:59.578+0000)

Alright. Unknown to you, I got that $100 million dollars by slaughtering women and children in other countries for X company.

Through completely unethical practices, by proxy, I have bettered the lives of others.

Do those lives cease to be bettered because the means in which that money was obtained was unethical?

I'll just think of you as an abortion clinic so it is K.

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:56:59.578+0000)

Alright. Unknown to you, I got that $100 million dollars by slaughtering women and children in other countries for X company.

Through completely unethical practices, by proxy, I have bettered the lives of others.

Do those lives cease to be bettered because the means in which that money was obtained was unethical?

That 100 million dollar is only bad BY PROXY, also the next recipient of the cash was in no way involved nor do they know the origin of the said money in this scenario, therefore the act of receiving the money can not be labelled as unethical because the recipient did not know about the origin of the money; It's as "bad" as collecting a pretty stone while knowing (and having no ways to know) that has fallen onto someone's head in the past. Not to mention, I'm sure most people would not just receive a large sum of money without some good reasons on where the money is from and what it is for, and would certainly reject it if they are given the information that it comes directly from slaughtering other people, so I'm not even sure what you're even trying to get at.

You're also directly comparing real 100 million dollar to fake love induced via chemicals, they are completely different matters, and certainly receiving one is on a vastly different scale of "bettered lives" than the other; money can buy you goods and services at the very least, delusion only makes you deluded.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

That 100 million dollar is only bad BY PROXY, also the next recipient of the cash was in no way involved nor do they know the origin of the said money in this scenario, therefore the act of receiving the money can not be labelled as unethical because the recipient did not know about the origin of the money; It's as "bad" as collecting a pretty stone without knowing that has fallen onto someone's head in the past. Not to mention, I'm sure most people would not just receive a large sum of money without some good reasons on where the money is from and what it is for, and would certainly reject it if they are given the information that it comes from slaughtering other people, so I'm not even sure what you're even trying to get at.

You're also directly comparing real 100 million dollar to fake love induced via chemicals, they are completely different matters, and certainly receiving one is on a vastly different scale of "bettered lives" than the other; money can buy you goods and services at the very least, delusion only makes you deluded.

The happiness is obtained by proxy. The recipient could not know about the origin of the happiness.

I'm not comparing the 100 million dollars to "fake love," however. ( You'd also be responsible for supporting the claim that the love simulated by the potion is fake compared to other loves simulated by people interacting with each other by other means )

The 100 million dollars was a counter-argument to your argument that because something unethical or because someone was being deluded, no real happiness or betterment can be achieved because of it.

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:21:36.025+0000)

The happiness is obtained by proxy. The recipient could not know about the origin of the happiness.

I'm not comparing the 100 million dollars to "fake love," however. ( You'd also be responsible for supporting the claim that the love simulated by the potion is fake compared to other loves simulated by people interacting with each other by other means )

The 100 million dollars was a counter-argument to your argument that because something unethical or because someone was being deluded, no real happiness or betterment can be achieved because of it.

I am not deluded and see 100 million dollars that's not there (given we're talking about real money cash money), however I am deluded to see love when it's not there when I'm on love drugs.

That alone marks the 2 things completely different, and your attempt at linking them a poor demonstration of logic, and the rest of your argument irrelevant.

You also still have yet to demonstrate how love potion abuse (to the point as you said "living in a state of bliss") is different than any other typical substance abuse, as well as how engaging in such a substance abuse and prolonged altered state of mind is actually objectively beneficial and improving someone's quality of life.

.....

There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means. Because the love potion is not a part of one's normal body function, and also by the nature of product producing 101 it is not going to be of the "safe" concentration and potency if used for commercial means instead of medical (perhaps for the function impaired); as there is no point to make and advertise a product that's literally something you already have and only have incredibly subtle effects that most people will not notice, as that's both pointless and borderline violating false advertising.

For the love potion to ever work as a commercial product, it can only exist in a form similar to ecstasies, and ofc, that also means this product should never exists as a commercial product.

There is a reason why there is a difference between taking drugs and consuming chocolates and exercising, even tho they all make you happy chemically. You're the one intentionally ignoring that just to push your poorly founded idea.

EDIT: Added a "not".

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I am not deluded and see 100 million dollars that's not there (given we're talking about real money cash money), however I am deluded to see love when it's not there when I'm on love drugs.

That alone marks the 2 things completely different, and your attempt at linking them a poor demonstration of logic, and the rest of your argument irrelevant.

You also still have yet to demonstrate how love potion abuse (to the point as you said "living in a state of bliss") is different than any other typical substance abuse, as well as how engaging in such a substance abuse and altered state of mind is actually objectively beneficial and improving someone's quality of life.

.....

There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means. Because the love potion is not a part of one's normal body function, and also by the nature of product producing 101 going to be of the "safe" concentration and potency if used for commercial means instead of medical; as there is no point to make and advertise a product that's literally something you already have and only have incredibly subtle effects that most people will not notice, as that's both pointless and borderline violating false advertising.

That's why there is a difference between taking drugs and consuming chocolates and exercising, even tho they all make you happy chemically. You're the one intentionally ignoring that just to push your poorly founded idea.

For the love potion to ever work as a commercial product, it can only exist in a form similar to ecstasies, and ofc, that also means this product should never exists as a commercial product.

You would have to make an argument, again, to support the idea that the potion is faking love instead of simulating real love.

Substance abuse/alcohol abuse has debilitating effects on your life and health. There are no established negative side effects to the love potion being pointed out. You're just suggesting that there are and equating the two.

"There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means."

If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference?

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:52:06.508+0000)

You would have to make an argument, again, to support the idea that the potion is faking love instead of simulating real love.

Substance abuse/alcohol abuse has debilitating effects on your life and health. There are no established negative side effects to the love potion being pointed out. You're just suggesting that there are and equating the two.

"There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means."

If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference?

Even without the person being literally steps away from death from substance abuse, it is still highly discouraged, why do you think that is?

Because it negatively impacts one's life, both their own body, mind, and their own social life, and often without the person's own knowing because they're stuck in an altered state of mind and a lot of times being unable to perceive and think over things properly as they would when without the influence of external drug intakes that directly affects their decision making.

So how are you going to tell me that it is QoL improvement?

.....

Speaking of negative impacts on one's body, are you going to assume that drugs that invade your brain and its function is not going to have any side effect or even permanent damage if used for prolonged periods of time?

Even Ritalin which is illegally taken by some people to boost their mental focus (as it's made for people suffering from attention deficiency related issues; it's illegal taken by your typical joes primarily as a form of cheating in fields that require strong mental focus, such as in exams) and viewed on that basis as being a 'superhuman drug', still has a bunch of both short term and long term negative side effects because it directly interferes with the chemistry in the brain. So on what basis do you think this love potion is going to be absolutely safe even though it touches the brain the exact same way as any other chemicals that does the same stuff, just in different areas?

I'll also have you know, brain is not like the rest of the body, it is both incredibly delicate as well as being not very robust and neither is it particularly good at regenerating itself. The brain does not have anywhere as high of a substance tolerance as the rest of the body would, nor is it anywhere comparable to being tolerant to injuries; unlike the body that can get poisoned and live to see the next day because it has a somewhat high toxicity resistance and mechanisms evolved to get rid off the said toxicity, the brain is not so tough and as little as a few neurons being damaged in the brain could potentially lead to drastic consequences such as memory loss or even function impairment, and they generate at an incredibly slow rate too which is why many of the brain injuries are compared to being permanent because the injuries will not be healed in the person's lifetime. WHICH IS WHY, unless absolutely necessary, drugs are designed to NOT go into the brain, as anything that goes in there risks unwanted and potentially permanent negative results; even for drugs that do go into the brain, various assessing points of WHAT IT IS and HOW MUCH USED and WHAT DOES IT DO and others are also strictly looked at. And this is also why, unless the love drug is used as a form of treatment, which in that case it will be heavily regulated and will only be used on the minimum amount required to solve any related situation, this drug is generally unwanted.

The "If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference" is not rationally sound, because we can all say that heroin is just stimulating the typical biological response to make you feel happy, and ofc it doesn't work like that. IMPLICATION is incredibly important, as shown above. It's easy to conclude that this drug may only truly exist in medical field (and like most drugs that have to do with brain, it will also be locked behind tight supervision, like the mentioned Ritalin is), or at least if commercially available it will only exists as a pointless and very ineffective over the counter drug that either as a negligible dose or induces similar results indirectly via things like making your heart beat slightly faster or something, and then go out of market quickly because of the negligible effect in spite of its advertised name and implied effects; and heavy dosing is no different to any other substance abuse, and thus discouraged and not allowed.

.....

And all of this I have not even touched the social implication of using such a drug, if present for sale in a noticeable potency. As mentioned, it opens doors to all kind of crimes related to abduction and rape and other similar stuff, as well as a bunch of issue in trying to trace the responsibilities relating to the topic.

As such, might as well never okay the damn drug for mass commercial use, no need to create your own troubles.

.....

EDIT: Also, the main focal point is not whether or not the love is real, at least not a major point (sure, "lying to yourself" and "living a lie" or "forcibly and noticeable altered state of mind" is enough to question the nature of the product, but even that takes a backseat on an overall scale). It's that a drug that is capable and potent enough to noticeably or even significantly influence one's decision making, should simply not be openly accessible, due to all of the other biological and social implications I've discussed.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Even without the person being literally steps away from death from substance abuse, it is still highly discouraged, why do you think that is?

Because it negatively impacts one's life, both their own body, mind, and their own social life, and often without the person's own knowing because they're stuck in an altered state of mind and a lot of times being unable to perceive and think over things properly as they would when without the influence of external drug intakes that directly affects their decision making.

So how are you going to tell me that it is QoL improvement?

.....

Speaking of negative impacts on one's body, are you going to assume that drugs that invade your brain and its function is not going to have any side effect or even permanent damage if used for prolonged periods of time?

Even Ritalin which is illegally taken by some people to boost their mental focus (as it's made for people suffering from attention deficiency related issues; it's illegal taken by your typical joes primarily as a form of cheating in fields that require strong mental focus, such as in exams) and viewed on that basis as being a 'superhuman drug', still has a bunch of both short term and long term negative side effects because it directly interferes with the chemistry in the brain. So on what basis do you think this love potion is going to be absolutely safe even though it touches the brain the exact same way as any other chemicals that does the same stuff, just in different areas?

I'll also have you know, brain is not like the rest of the body, it is both incredibly delicate as well as being not very robust and neither is it particularly good at regenerating itself. The brain does not have anywhere as high of a substance tolerance as the rest of the body would, nor is it anywhere comparable to being tolerant to injuries; unlike the body that can get poisoned and live to see the next day because it has a somewhat high toxicity resistance and mechanisms evolved to get rid off the said toxicity, the brain is not so tough and as little as a few neurons being damaged in the brain could potentially lead to drastic consequences such as memory loss or even function impairment, and they generate at an incredibly slow rate too which is why many of the brain injuries are compared to being permanent because the injuries will not be healed in the person's lifetime. WHICH IS WHY, unless absolutely necessary, drugs are designed to NOT go into the brain, as anything that goes in there risks unwanted and potentially permanent negative results; even for drugs that do go into the brain, various assessing points of WHAT IT IS and HOW MUCH USED and WHAT DOES IT DO and others are also strictly looked at. And this is also why, unless the love drug is used as a form of treatment, which in that case it will be heavily regulated and will only be used on the minimum amount required to solve any related situation, this drug is generally unwanted.

The "If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference" is not rationally sound, because we can all say that heroin is just stimulating the typical biological response to make you feel happy, and ofc it doesn't work like that. IMPLICATION is incredibly important, as shown above. It's easy to conclude that this drug may only truly exist in medical field (and like most drugs that have to do with brain, it will also be locked behind tight supervision, like the mentioned Ritalin is), or at least if commercially available it will only exists as a pointless and very ineffective over the counter drug that either as a negligible dose or induces similar results indirectly via things like making your heart beat slightly faster or something, and then go out of market quickly because of the negligible effect in spite of its advertised name and implied effects; and heavy dosing is no different to any other substance abuse, and thus discouraged and not allowed.

.....

And all of this I have not even touched the social implication of using such a drug, if present for sale in a noticeable potency. As mentioned, it opens doors to all kind of crimes related to abduction and rape and other similar stuff, as well as a bunch of issue in trying to trace the responsibilities relating to the topic.

As such, might as well never okay the damn drug for mass commercial use, no need to create your own troubles.

.....

EDIT: Also, the main focal point is not whether or not the love is real, at least not a major point (sure, "lying to yourself" and "living a lie" or "forcibly and noticeable altered state of mind" is enough to question the nature of the product, but even that takes a backseat on an overall scale). It's that a drug that is capable and potent enough to noticeably or even significantly influence one's decision making, should simply not be openly accessible, due to all of the other biological and social implications I've discussed.

We're talking about a love potion, a THEORETICAL love potion. Everyone's only agreed on one thing : That it makes person X fall in love with person Z.

You've decided, all on your own, that this potion is going to have this effect, that effect, etc... and you're purporting it as the truth.

That's not how it works.

With the drugs in question we have data and evidence to point at that suggests why they're harmful for you.

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:00:29.239+0000)

We're talking about a love potion, a THEORETICAL love potion. Everyone's only agreed on one thing : That it makes person X fall in love with person Z.

You've decided, all on your own, that this potion is going to have this effect, that effect, etc... and you're purporting it as the truth.

That's not how it works.

With the drugs in question we have data and evidence to point at that suggests why they're harmful for you.

It is not much of a discussion on the viability or impact of something being made and used in the real world, if we can only talk about an oversimplified and nearly romanticised outlook of the said something; anything is good under that pretense, you know.

Ofc, it is fundamental and required to weigh that potential something against its potential real world implications once they're made and available to use by the masses.

If that something can not even pass pseudy-practical challenges thrown at its premise, how the hell is it gonna fare well against the real world which is significantly crueler (or at least with far more cruel people than the typical simulations) with far more uncertainties?

......

Hell, even on a pure theoretical level, it is already questionable. I mean, under which normal and harmless circumstances, is a drug that "makes person X fall in love with person Z" even needed? Because if you want to fall in love with someone, you already have fallen for them, as such this drug is only ever actually useful when forcing someone who is not in love to be in love, so why the hell do we need this thing? Unless ofc, it is potentially used as a treatment option for those who are somehow incapable of falling in love but want to, but otherwise, this drug is questionable at best.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

It is not much of a discussion on the viability or impact of something being made and used in the real world, if you can only talk about an oversimplified and nearly romanticised outlook of the said something.

Ofc, it is fundamental and required to weigh that potential something against its potential real world implications once they're made and available to use by the masses.

If that something can not even pass pseudy-practical challenges thrown at its premise, how the hell is it gonna fare well against the real world which is significantly crueler with far more uncertainties?

......

Hell, even on a pure theoretical level, it is already questionable. Under which normal and harmless circumstances, is a drug that "makes person X fall in love with person Z" even needed? Because if you want to fall in love with someone, you already have fallen for them, as such this drug is only ever actually useful when forcing someone who is not in love to be in love, so why the hell do we need this thing? Unless ofc, it is potentially used as a treatment option for those who are somehow incapable of falling in love, but otherwise, this drug is questionable at best.

We're trying to get to the philosophical and ethical bedrock of what such a potion's effect would have on how we interact with one another.

We're not trying to figure out if the love potion gives you brain cancer if you use it too much.

I'll try to provide a seemingly innocent example of how it may or may not be used as a good thing.

Let's presume what I just said to BlueVestGuy has some merit and that the love potion doesn't make you braindead, which everyone seems to have instantly attributed to it.

It makes you love a person. That's not the same as lusting for someone. That's not the same as physically having sex with them. Etc...

What if it were a pseudo sort of lens you could give to people so that virtually everyone loved everyone else.

You'd be far less inclined to hurt said people. You'd be far less inclined to offend said people. Even the ugliest of people could still, theoretically, have a chance at dating supermodels because you've abolished these barriers between them so that they're able to interact with one another on a more intimate level and see past certain flaws in one another, etc...

What're your thoughts on that?

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:15:05.107+0000)

We're trying to get to the philosophical and ethical bedrock of what such a potion's effect would have on how we interact with one another.

We're not trying to figure out if the love potion gives you brain cancer if you use it too much.

I'll try to provide a seemingly innocent example of how it may or may not be used as a good thing.

Let's presume what I just said to BlueVestGuy has some merit and that the love potion doesn't make you braindead, which everyone seems to have instantly attributed to it.

It makes you love a person. That's not the same as lusting for someone. That's not the same as physically having sex with them. Etc...

What if it were a pseudo sort of lens you could give to people so that virtually everyone loved everyone else.

You'd be far less inclined to hurt said people. You'd be far less inclined to offend said people. Even the ugliest of people could still, theoretically, have a chance at dating supermodels because you've abolished these barriers between them so that they're able to interact with one another on a more intimate level and see past certain flaws in one another, etc...

What're your thoughts on that?

No, I was talking about the ethics of the drug in my last and separated out paragraph, too.

I specifically point out that if you're in love, then you are in love, and if not, then you're not (does matter if it involves touching the other's body); as such this drug is only ever needed when you're forcing someone to love another that they otherwise wouldn't. And this is the basis that this thing is questionable, because you can not force people into a particular set of thinking, especially in regards to the rules of attraction (and the only exemption I gave is the possible usage of being a treatment for a patient who is incapable of feeling love but wants to).

What you're doing is a worse form of arrange marriage in a way (or at least some kind of forced relationship), because at least things like arrange marriage does not physically alter your perception and way of thinking or your conclusion on a matter, but this drug does.

In regards to having people being less inclined to hurt others and be kinder/accepting to each other, there is a thing called "education". We do not need to drug the entire population with some love drugs or whatever to teach people the concept of equality or to abolish discrimination, what you're suggesting is a very dystopian outlook on things. It in fact reminds me of this game "We Happy Few", where its premise is about a society where everybody takes a 'happy drug' called "Joy" and everybody is all supposedly high and loving and whatever, but instead of being a perfect society it is in fact, the society is completely dysfunctional, because it is not a society if no one is in their right mind; this is similar.

Better education goes farther than drugging everybody, trust me.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

No, I was talking about the ethics of the drug in my last and separated out paragraph, too.

I specifically point out that if you're in love, then you are in love, and if not, then you're not (does matter if it involves touching the other's body); as such this drug is only ever needed when you're forcing someone to love another that they otherwise wouldn't.

This is not true. If I ran into a girl, randomly, at a bar for instance and slipped this into her drink. There is nothing to suggest she would or wouldn't be able to love me by other means. I've simply bypassed the trials and errors between now and then.

What you're doing is a worse form of arrange marriage in a way (or at least some kind of forced relationship), because at least things like arrange marriage does not physically alter your perception and way of thinking or your conclusion on a matter, but this drug does.

I would argue that the fact that it'd alter your perception is precisely why it wouldn't be worse than arranged marriage. In an arranged marriage, you might not want to be with the other person and you're aware that you don't want to be with that other person but you're compelled against your will to be with that other person. If you're in love with that person, you're not in a constant state of regret or upset or depressed, etc... because you're forced to live with said person for the rest of your life.

In regards to having people being less inclined to hurt others and be kinder/accepting to each other, there is a thing called "education". We do not need to drug the entire population with some love drugs or whatever to teach people the concept of equality or to abolish discrimination, what you're suggesting is a very dystopian outlook on things.

Better education goes farther than drugging everybody, trust me.

Sorry but drugging an entire species with a love potion would objectively be faster and have more reach in terms of achieving widespread love for each other than educating people.

But as for the premise of this argument, mankind's had quite a while now to educate themselves and it doesn't seem to have achieved what you're implying it achieves. In fact, we've only really just found out better ways to kill more of us, quicker and more efficiently.

It in fact reminds me of this game "We Happy Few", where its premise is about a society where everybody takes a 'happy drug' called "Joy" and everybody is all supposedly high and loving and whatever, but instead of being a perfect society it is in fact, the society is completely dysfunctional, because it is not a society if no one is in their right mind; this is similar.

Just so we're on the same page. The fact that someone made a game where things didn't work out doesn't actually mean things wouldn't work out and this doesn't actually prove anything. You're aware of that, right?

BlueVestGuyMar 30, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:52:06.508+0000)

You would have to make an argument, again, to support the idea that the potion is faking love instead of simulating real love.

Substance abuse/alcohol abuse has debilitating effects on your life and health. There are no established negative side effects to the love potion being pointed out. You're just suggesting that there are and equating the two.

The substance abuse argument was to point out that not because something relieves a person by altering their state of mind that it is a good and legal/ethical solution. Somebody that gets wasted every day might feel happiness through their altered,weakened state of mind : They are not, in fact, happy, simply unable to think rationally enough. Somebody who is forced to love somebody else because a substance altered their state of mind is also not able to think rationally, to their full extent.

"There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means."

If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference?

You can stop loving somebody in the first case. The original happiness/love potion suggested by you/the OP had permanent, non-negociable effects, where the recipient would not have the capacity to decide to stop loving somebody. They would indeed be forced to be infatuated by somebody else. They would be forced to only have "I consent to this Relationship" as an option. Not unlike how in robocop (the remake), the machine took the decisions but alex Murphy thought he did. He had no way of making any decision : his senses were just inhibited to the point where he thought those decisions came from him, he was restrained to believe he had made the choices.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

The substance abuse argument was to point out that not because something relieves a person by altering their state of mind that it is a good and legal/ethical solution. Somebody that gets wasted every day might feel happiness through their altered,weakened state of mind : They are not, in fact, happy, simply unable to think rationally enough. Somebody who is forced to love somebody else because a substance altered their state of mind is also not able to think rationally, to their full extent.

The original happiness/love potion suggested by you/the OP had permanent, non-negociable effects, where the recipient would not have the capacity to decide to stop loving somebody. They would indeed be forced to be infatuated by somebody else. They would be forced to only have "I consent to this Relationship" as an option.

1 ) Your substance argument is a dishonest examination of the situation. You're equating a substance we know to have detrimental effects on human beings that ballpark certain feelings for people to a hypothetical potion that ONLY simulates love for another human being and nothing more.

2 ) I don't see where the OP had suggested what you said he's suggested nor where I have suggested it. Quote me or him/her if I'm wrong, please. But the only thing suggested was that a love potion would make someone love another person. Nobody ever settled on what that entails, which is probably something we should talk about if we're getting into the nitty gritty of it. When you love another human being you are not enthralled to their agency. You're still a person. You still have choices. You might love someone but that doesn't mean you agree with everything they say or do and it doesn't mean you're forced into sex with them whenever they want.

BlueVestGuyMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:09:21.731+0000)

1 ) Your substance argument is a dishonest examination of the situation. You're equating a substance we know to have detrimental effects on human beings that ballpark certain feelings for people to a hypothetical potion that ONLY simulates love for another human being and nothing more.

The fact that they have negative effects is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it. We're arguing that they, just like the love potion, alter the state of mind of a person so they believe they are happy. I didn't say that "Doing X drug or drinking alcohol will make you more likely to feel in love with somebody else". I said that this argument pointed out that said person was not in the right state of mind to say "I am happy. This is how I feel", but in a state of mind that was so inhibited that it is the only thing they can be. Same as the love potion : They can't decide how they are. Their sense are inhibited so the only thing they can feel towards that person is love. It doesn't matter if that person is the most hateful human you've ever met. It doesn't matter if up until now you wanted to tear them apart, ruin their live, etc. . They made you take the potion. You love them now. That is not your decision but that is the result.

2 ) I don't see where the OP had suggested what you said he's suggested nor where I have suggested it. Quote me or him/her if I'm wrong, please. But the only thing suggested was that a love potion would make someone love another person. Nobody ever settled on what that entails, which is probably something we should talk about if we're getting into the nitty gritty of it. When you love another human being you are not enthralled to their agency. You're still a person. You still have choices. You might love someone but that doesn't mean you agree with everything they say or do and it doesn't mean you're forced into sex with them whenever they want.

Can do.

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000)

I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the **rest of your life **completely blissful and carefree.

Regarding the happiness potion. You later subdued it for a love potion.

this discussion is also kinda hard to quantify since we dont exactly know what the properties of a love potion would be (permanent or temporary, if the potion could be traced in blood/urine, etc)

As in the OP. I'll give it to you : They hadn't made it clear which one it was, only suggested both. Every user that has participated in this thread was suggesting that it was either permanent or that the other person would renew the effects, though.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

The fact that they have negative effects is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it. We're arguing that they, just like the love potion, alter the state of mind of a person so they believe they are happy. I didn't say that "Doing X drug or drinking alcohol will make you more likely to feel in love with somebody else". I said that this argument pointed out that said person was not in the right state of mind to say "I am happy. This is how I feel", but in a state of mind that was so inhibited that it is the only thing they can be. Same as the love potion : They can't decide how they are. Their sense are inhibited so the only thing they can feel towards that person is love. It doesn't matter if that person is the most hateful human you've ever met. It doesn't matter if up until now you wanted to tear them apart, ruin their live, etc. . They made you take the potion. You love them now. That is not your decision but that is the result.

If you're going to ignore that these things have negative effects then you're not allowed to use them as crutches in your argument. You do not get to say 'this substance which does this one thing similar to the potion but also does all this other nasty stuff to you, is the same thing,' in a nutshell. They're not the same and you're going to have to acknowledge their differences if you're going to continue using them as comparisons.

This is no different than me saying :

Person A plays with children because it makes him happy. Person B rapes children because it makes him happy.

It's the same thing because they share similarities.

Can do.

Regarding the happiness potion. You later subdued it for a love potion.

Again, not the same thing. Different potion. Different rules. Different argument with a different person with different angle to try and provoke a different conversation than people were having. These things matter.

As in the OP. I'll give it to you : They hadn't made it clear which one it was, only suggested both. Every user that has participated in this thread was suggesting that it was either permanent or that the other person would renew the effects, though.

I honestly am not too concerned with the longevity of the potion's effects, moreso what those effects entail.

It was important for me to emphasize that loving someone does not make you a robot incapable of making decisions. You love a lot of people in your life. You do not have sex with all of them. You do not date all of them. So I wanted to eradicate this popular thought that it inherently means that "people are only going to use this potion to force women to have sex with them" or something like that so that the conversation could be about something more controversial instead of something we all just instantly agree upon. Human trafficking bad, yes, of course.

I also wanna' go ahead and say that I don't have some preconceptions about most of what's being talked about and every few minutes I keep thinking of new things that are re-defining where exactly I am standing in all this so have a little mercy if you see that something's kind of out-of-place here and there through the progression of the conversation.

It's getting really difficult to keep up with all the points from everyone in the thread simultaneously as well when they're getting layered on top of each other and everyone's getting into essay-form now, lol.

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:45:51.911+0000)

But that's 100% of all human relationships.

If I gave you $100 million dollars, would you be happy?

This is false equivalence.

The 100 million dollar is material and tangible and measurable. It is obviously different to the notion of love, ESPECIALLY an artificially induced love through the chemical alteration of one's brain.
The part of me that is happy about the 100 million dollar is my own ego, I am not under any substance's influence to make that decision to love money. The same can not be said about the subject under the influence of a "love potion" because their decision making is clearly influenced or even dominated by an external drug that's not part of their own ego nor part of their normal day-to-day function without the substance. Therefore the 2 are not comparable because one has full control of themselves and the other does not.
Even if the person dosing themselves with "love potion" willingly allows their mind to be altered by drugs to live in a state of delusion out of their own accord, it is still not a valid reasoning to claim that they're happy, or objectively having a better life. The same reason why drug addicts who spend each and every day sniffing drugs is clearly not a good thing.

What you're saying is basically that you believe drug addicts or whatever (such as alcoholics) are leading "better" lives thanks to their substance, and that being in a state of delusion due to the abuse of their substance is a genuine QoL improvement. No, it's not, it's that simple.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

This is false equivalence.

The 100 million dollar is material and tangible and measurable. It is obviously different to the notion of love, ESPECIALLY an artificially induced love through the chemical alteration of one's brain.

The part of me that is happy about the 100 million dollar is my own ego, I am not under any substance's influence to make that decision to love money. The same can not be said about the subject under the influence of a "love potion" because their decision making is clearly influenced or even dominated by an external drug that's not part of their own ego nor part of their normal day-to-day function. Therefore the 2 are not comparable because one has full control of themselves and the other does not.

Even if the person dosing themselves with "love potion" willingly allows their mind to be altered by drugs to live in a state of delusion out of their own accord, it is still not a valid reasoning to claim that they're happy. The same reason why drug addicts who spend each and every day sniffing drugs is clearly not a good thing.

What you're saying is basically that you believe drug addicts or whatever (such as alcoholics) are leading "better" lives thanks to their substance, and that being in a state of delusion due to the abuse of their substance is a genuine QoL improvement. No, it's not, it's that simple.

You're comparing substance/alcohol abuse to a theoretical love potion that only simulates love for another person while calling me out on false equivalencies because I'm trying to illustrate a point about the premise of your aforementioned argument about whether or not someone's life can be made better or not through deception/delusion.

-Wags finger.-

Irelia BotMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:59:31.730+0000)

You're comparing substance/alcohol abuse to a theoretical love potion that only simulates love for another person while calling me out on false equivalencies because I'm trying to illustrate a point about the premise of your aforementioned argument about whether or not someone's life can be made better or not through deception/delusion.

-Wags finger.-

Some people can be made better through deception/delusion. Placebo is literally a word defining such a situation and there have been times when people take a pill that does nothing but since said person took it after being told it would help with their problem they think they are better and in cases like depression they actually are better because of it.

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:05:50.617+0000)

Some people can be made better through deception/delusion. Placebo is literally a word defining such a situation and there have been times when people take a pill that does nothing but since said person took it after being told it would help with their problem they think they are better and in cases like depression they actually are better because of it.

The difference between delusion and placebo is that, placebo still actually works even if you're given a full explanation and fully aware and accept that it's a placebo (this is also why most forms of placebos today are "open labelled", where the doctors will straight up tell you that it's a placebo and you will still take the placebo treatment but still have the intended effect anyway), delusion on the other hand is far fragile and as soon as the person is no longer believing in it it typically disappears (unless the delusion is tied to physical and permanent brain injuries).

SEKAIMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:59:31.730+0000)

You're comparing substance/alcohol abuse to a theoretical love potion that only simulates love for another person while calling me out on false equivalencies because I'm trying to illustrate a point about the premise of your aforementioned argument about whether or not someone's life can be made better or not through deception/delusion.

-Wags finger.-

All of those substances have pretty much the same core function, it makes the person loses control over themselves and their decisions; the details may vary, but they are pretty much the same deal.

So if alcohol abuse or drug abuse is bad, why would love potion, especially its abuse to the point of a person "living in a bliss", be a good thing?

Why would anyone need fake or artificially induced love, especially when it comes to people perfectly capable of expressing it naturally so I'm not even talking about the possibility of using it as a potential treatment option for the relationship unresponsive people who're looking to get into love? And in what ways does that, or living in a lie and delusion in general, legitimately helps a person and improve their lives on an objective term?

Irelia BotMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000)

Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing.

Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion.

I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree.

Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I hurt you in some way?

What's the difference between negatively influencing the life of someone and positively influencing the life of someone? If it's illegal to positively influence others' lives, where does the line get drawn? Should it be illegal to make someone else smile because you've essentially altered the way that they feel, temporary or otherwise?

This takes us back around to the love potion and most of the arguments being presented are outside of the scope of the perspective of the people in the scenario in question.

If you were under the effects of the love potion. You are not being raped when said person is having sex with you. You are consenting to that sex because you're in love with that person. You are not a slave to that person because you are, again, consenting to what it is that they're asking.

Spin this around and apply it to traditional relationships today. Forget there's a love potion for a moment. Are you being raped when you're in love with someone and you consent to having sex with them? Are you a slave to someone if they ask you to do something and you consent to do that something?

If not, wherein lies the difference?

Is it a crime to make better the state of another human being?

I would have used the 6 shots and 7 beers later argument when said person knew that drinking all of those would get them wasted and horny... Then again in this wasted situation said person started consuming a mind altering substance by their own efforts and I have heard differing views on should they be held accountable for their actions when knowingly taking a mind altering substance or not.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050001,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:42:12.551+0000)

I would have used the 6 shots and 7 beers later argument when said person knew that drinking all of those would get them wasted and horny... Then again in this wasted situation said person started consuming a mind altering substance by their own efforts and I have heard differing views on should they be held accountable for their actions when knowingly taking a mind altering substance or not.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at.

You're saying that someone intentionally gets drunk, then while drunk takes this mind-altering substance, and then while they're under the influence of said substance they may or may not do something that they regret or might be illegal or harmful to others or something of that nature... and they should be held accountable for it?

It depends if someone used their intoxicated state to persuade them into trying said substance or slipped it to them while they're drunk unbeknownst to them and whether or not that person is sober or intoxicated as well, etc...

There are a lot of variables at play once you get into it.

Irelia BotMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:53:31.351+0000)

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at.

You're saying that someone intentionally gets drunk, then while drunk takes this mind-altering substance, and then while they're under the influence of said substance they may or may not do something that they regret or might be illegal or harmful to others or something of that nature... and they should be held accountable for it?

It depends if someone used their intoxicated state to persuade them into trying said substance or slipped it to them while they're drunk unbeknownst to them and whether or not that person is sober or intoxicated as well, etc...

There are a lot of variables at play once you get into it.

Alcohol is a mind altering substance.

BlueVestGuyMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000)

Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing.

Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion.

I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree.

Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I hurt you in some way?

this has already been discussed/experimented and the results were that if people had a choice between their life as is or their life with a pill that essentially make them happy and most people said they wouldn't want the pill or something like that I forgot the exact thing but the results stay the same Depending of your philosophical beliefs if you agree with nietzsche you could support this conclusion by saying that permanent happiness would in fact take away all meanings of life because you wouldn't really have to overcome any obstacle

You're also forgetting a few things

People that, in a way, do not want to be happy (sounds silly on paper but it's a more complicated matter)
Your decision to make somebody "permanently happy" was made without their consent. And even if they would be happy with that decision once in effect, at the time it was made, they wouldn't necessarly be. Even though they might, in a way, consent to whatever you make them do using the potion, you ultimately decided for them. They are not in a state of mind where they could take a sound decision. That is why even if a 13 year old consents to an intimate Relationship with a 50 year old it is still illegal. The 13 year old does not have the capacity to fully analyze the situation. Neither would somebody that has no choice but to be happy forever or to be in love forever.

I'm overlooking some aspects of the situation that I forgot while writting this. Whatever.

Also : regarding your last example, the Relationship one. Some people do rape their SO. Sex isn't always consensual in a Relationship. Don't see it as "you consent to have sex with him/her" but as "you want to have sex with him/her and so does (s)he". The victim might still love the other one once it's over. Doesn't change a thing if they didn't want it. Same thing as the slave thing : Some people manipulate their boyfriend/girlfriend, some put them through physical/psychological abuse to influence them to do something. Now, technically, have they made the decision to do X? Perhaps. They probably wouldn't were they not convinced that not doing X would bring much more negative repercussions.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

this has already been discussed/experimented and the results were that if people had a choice between their life as is or their life with a pill that essentially make them happy and most people said they wouldn't want the pill or something like that I forgot the exact thing but the results stay the same Depending of your philosophical beliefs if you agree with nietzsche you could support this conclusion by saying that permanent happiness would in fact take away all meanings of life because you wouldn't really have to overcome any obstacle

You're also forgetting a few things

People that, in a way, do not want to be happy (sounds silly on paper but it's a more complicated matter)

Your decision to make somebody "permanently happy" was made without their consent. And even if they would be happy with that decision once in effect, at the time it was made, they wouldn't necessarly be. Even though they might, in a way, consent to whatever you make them do using the potion, you ultimately decided for them. They are not in a state of mind where they could take a sound decision. That is why even if a 13 year old consents to an intimate Relationship with a 50 year old it is still illegal. The 13 year old does not have the capacity to fully analyze the situation. Neither would somebody that has no choice but to be happy forever or to be in love forever.

I'm overlooking some aspects of the situation that I forgot while writting this. Whatever.

Also : regarding your last example, the Relationship one. Some people do rape their SO. Sex isn't always consensual in a Relationship. Don't see it as "you consent to have sex with him/her" but as "you want to have sex with him/her and so does (s)he". The victim might still love the other one once it's over. Doesn't change a thing if they didn't want it. Same thing as the slave thing : Some people manipulate their boyfriend/girlfriend, some put them through physical/psychological abuse to influence them to do something. Now, technically, have they made the decision to do X? Perhaps. They probably wouldn't were they not convinced that not doing X would bring much more negative repercussions.

I would attribute this to the same situation wherein someone's suffering from a mental disease.

A physician of some sort would diagnose that person and determine whether or not that person has a mental disease, what disease it is, and what you would need to either cure it or suppress it to the point that that person can function in society henceforth like a seemingly normal human being.

You would not ask the patient in question whether or not he/she was suffering from a mental disease, what it is, and how to cure it. Right?

So when you default to "people wouldn't want this," I'd decide to adopt this same sort of reasoning. If you have a collection of people who are suffering from something, let's call it "not happiness" in this instance and you have a cure to that disposition. Who knows better? The physician or the patient?

If this doesn't apply here, why would it apply elsewhere in life?

If you are not allowed to influence, without consent, the perspective of another human being, why is it legal for children to be trained to believe certain ideologies? You're imprinting your beliefs onto that organism without their consent. Should that not also be unethical and/or illegal?

Also, whether or not some people do rape in relationships has no value in this discussion. We're talking about the differences between a simulated love relationship through a potion and your typical loving relationship where two people are consenting to the sex in question and whether or not one of those two situations qualifies as rape and why. We're not talking about instances in which two people are NOT consenting in these situations because, as previously dictated by others, when under the influence of the love potion, you consent.

BlueVestGuyMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500020000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:40:26.662+0000)

I would attribute this to the same situation wherein someone's suffering from a mental disease.

A physician of some sort would diagnose that person and determine whether or not that person has a mental disease, what disease it is, and what you would need to either cure it or suppress it to the point that that person can function in society henceforth like a seemingly normal human being.

You would not ask the patient in question whether or not he/she was suffering from a mental disease, what it is, and how to cure it. Right?

Yes, you do, actually. You can not legally (and ethically) force somebody to take a treatment. That is why people suffering depression, suicidal tendencies, etc. must go to the appropriate clinic themselves. A relative or "someone that knows better" can't register them and force them to go there, even if, in a hypothetical scenario, that clinic had a 100% cure rate.

So when you default to "people wouldn't want this," I'd decide to adopt this same sort of reasoning. If you have a collection of people who are suffering from something, let's call it "not happiness" in this instance and you have a cure to that disposition. Who knows better? The physician or the patient?

It's not about knowing better. It's about not going against the natural order of things.

If this doesn't apply here, why would it apply elsewhere in life?

If you are not allowed to influence, without consent, the perspective of another human being, why is it legal for children to be trained to believe certain ideologies? You're imprinting your beliefs onto that organism without their consent. Should that not also be unethical and/or illegal?

Children do not have the mental capacities to understand every aspect of a situation. That is why adults must take the right decisions (based on their knowledge and experience) for them, at least regarding certain things. Hence why some people teach certain ideologies to their child : because they believe it is the right one. As such : If a child had to choose between a box full of toys and a million dollars, the child would choose the box, because the child does not give any value to a piece of paper. But any rational human being would choose the cheque, because that much money can buy the same box full of toys and so much more things.

That is why even if a 13 year old consents to an intimate Relationship with a 50 year old it is still illegal. The 13 year old does not have the capacity to fully analyze the situation. Neither would somebody that has no choice but to be happy forever or to be in love forever.

Also, whether or not some people do rape in relationships has no value in this discussion. We're talking about the differences between a simulated love relationship through a potion and your typical loving relationship where two people are consenting to the sex in question and whether or not one of those two situations qualifies as rape and why. We're not talking about instances in which two people are NOT consenting in these situations because, as previously dictated by others, when under the influence of the love potion, you consent.

The rape part was just to show that "love" wasn't a very good reason to justify a behavior that is either ethically or legally questionable. We were talking about consent: I was giving an example where somebody would "consent" to [do something] because they )were influenced( to believe that any other action would have worse repercussions. To apply this to the current situation, somebody is [in love with someone else] because of )the love potion(

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Yes, you do, actually. You can not legally (and ethically) force somebody to take a treatment. That is why people suffering depression, suicidal tendencies, etc. must go to the appropriate clinic themselves. A relative or "someone that knows better" can't register them and force them to go there, even if, in a hypothetical scenario, that clinic had a 100% cure rate.

It's not about knowing better. It's about not going against the natural order of things.

Children do not have the mental capacities to understand every aspect of a situation. That is why adults must take the right decisions (based on their knowledge and experience) for them, at least regarding certain things. Hence why some people teach certain ideologies to their child : because they believe it is the right one. As such : If a child had to choose between a box full of toys and a million dollars, the child would choose the box, because the child does not give any value to a piece of paper. But any rational human being would choose the cheque, because that much money can buy the same box full of toys and so much more things.

.

The rape part was just to show that "love" wasn't a very good reason to justify a behavior that is either ethically or legally questionable. We were talking about consent: I was giving an example where somebody would "consent" to [do something] because they )were influenced( to believe that any other action would have worse repercussions. To apply this to the current situation, somebody is [in love with someone else] because of )the love potion(

1 ) People actually do get treated against their will if they're found to be unsound of mind to make the decision themselves or if they're deemed a threat to the people around them.

2 ) If you're against the natural order of things then you wouldn't be on a computer right now because it goes against the natural order of things. You wouldn't eat processed food. You wouldn't buy packaged food from a store. You wouldn't wear clothes. Etc...

3 ) "because they believe it is the right one" What's the difference in me just saying I believe the potion is the right one, then? You've just decided that these people who have no qualifications for X situation get a pass because "they believe it's right." Apply that anywhere else.

4 ) We're talking about abstracts. We're not talking about physically forcing someone to have sex with you. We're not talking about holding a gun to someone's head and coercing them to have sex with you or else. We're talking about people who have the same state of mind and mental acuity as a person you have dated for X amount of years and you lay in bed and both decide you wanna' have sex and then you have sex. This is the philosophical bedrock that you need to address. What is the difference between these two situations. Why's one rape and the other isn't?

BlueVestGuyMar 30, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050002000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T08:53:18.559+0000)

1 ) People actually do get treated against their will if they're found to be unsound of mind to make the decision themselves or if they're deemed a threat to the people around them.

We're not talking about the extreme cases that are mentally unstable. Not loving somebody doesn't mean you are unsound of mind and unable to make rational decisions. Not loving somebody doesn't mean you are a threat to society. You keep avoiding the fact that you're taking a decision for somebody that can take decisions and took one that was very clearly the opposing one (Otherwise why would you have to resort to a love potion if the person already loves you? To make sure they do not stop loving you? They are still able to take rational decisions. You're still forcing them to adhere to your point of view.)

2 ) If you're against the natural order of things then you wouldn't be on a computer right now because it goes against the natural order of things. You wouldn't eat processed food. You wouldn't buy packaged food from a store. You wouldn't wear clothes. Etc...

You and I both know the "natural order" I was refering to was not "let's all start living like animals". Also that is a very faulty analogy. Additionally you didn't reply to the fact that "Knowing better" was not a valid reason (legally and ethically) to force people to do act as you see fit.

3 ) "because they believe it is the right one" What's the difference in me just saying I believe the potion is the right one, then? You've just decided that these people who have no qualifications for X situation get a pass because "they believe it's right." Apply that anywhere else.

Stop avoiding to counter my point. You're trying to argue about semantics here. We're not talking about weither the adults have the right ideologies. We're talking that kids do not know how to take decisions. They do not have the rational skills to do so. You even said something similar in your 1), albeit with different actors. In this context, by giving a love potion to someone else, you are taking a decision for someone that is in a clear state of mind and able to make sound decisions on their own (YOU decide for THEM that they will love you) and then rely on the decision "made" by somebody that isn't in full control (YOU decide for THEM that they will love you, and so they SAY they love you because that is the truth that was imposed on them ; they are not able to fully analyze the situation. They can only see one outcome and it is the one you want.)

4 ) We're talking about abstracts. We're not talking about physically forcing someone to have sex with you. We're not talking about holding a gun to someone's head and coercing them to have sex with you or else. We're talking about people who have the same state of mind and mental acuity as a person you have dated for X amount of years and you lay in bed and both decide you wanna' have sex and then you have sex. This is the philosophical bedrock that you need to address. What is the difference between these two situations. Why's one rape and the other isn't?

..what? What does that has to do with anything I said?

I was giving an example where somebody would "consent" to [do something] because they )were influenced( to believe ~~that any other action would have worse repercussions~~ it is what they want. To apply this to the current situation, somebody is [in love with someone else] because of )the love potion(

You said it yourself : After taking the potion, they have the state of mind of somebody that you have dated for an unspecified amount of time. You alter their state of mind. They did not think that way. You FORCED THEM to take a potion that would make them believe they love you. They do not want to love you ; they are contrained to love you. It doesn't matter if you do not have to physically restrain them. You mentally restrain them.

Gotei 13 AizenMar 30, 20181 votes

{quoted}

"You can not legally (and ethically) force somebody to take a treatment."

These are your words. I've argued that people do, in fact, get forced treatments. It doesn't matter when, how, or by whom or under what circumstances other than the fact that A ) it happens, B ) it was ethical, and C ) it was legal.

You and I both know the "natural order" I was refering to was not "let's all start living like animals". Also that is a very faulty analogy.

Explain to me your own personalized version of what natural order is so that I have a better understanding of what I'm supposed to be arguing against.

Additionally you didn't reply to the fact that "Knowing better" was not a valid reason (legally and ethically) to force people to do act as you see fit.

I don't see what it is that you're talking about.

We're not talking about weither the adults have the right ideologies. We're talking that kids do not know how to take decisions.

Again this isn't true. You're not talking about whether kids can make decisions, you're arguing about whether or not kids can make the RIGHT ( or at least decisions that correlate to societal standards ) decisions. That's not the same thing. I'm saying that, even as adults, people still wrestle with the same problem. They don't know what is right or wrong. They're more informed than the children but that doesn't mean anything other than they're more informed than the children. There is no absolute summation of ethics/morality to abide by, we're all just winging it and all of what we've learned and agreed upon are contingent on the idea that we all share similar interests.

..what? What does that has to do with anything I said?

Because you're trying to equate consent to forced consent.

You alter their state of mind. They did not think that way. You FORCED THEM to take a potion that would make them believe they love you. They do not want to love you

1 ) You alter peoples' state of mind regarding their perception of you every time you interact with them. This is nothing new and they have no choice in the matter.

2 ) You don't know whether or not someone wants to love the other person or not outside of the potion's influence. You're just implying that, for whatever reason, this person hates the other person and wants nothing to do with him/her.

ZenithEeveeMar 30, 20181 votes

it would depend on how the so called lovepotion works.

Does it work by allowing one person to perceive you as more attractive? Does it work by turning the person into basically puddy in your hands level of Lovey dovey? Does it work by deceiving the other person to see you as their dream mate?

Down to it, The first question is How it works

THen the second question is how the way it works would coincide with whatever laws.

But down to it, I think the best explanation is as simple as: If it cannot change their ability to give or hold consent, It shouldn't matter.

TwitchInMyPantsMar 30, 20181 votes

Funny thing, I had a DnD game I was DMing where a player used a Philter of Love to make someone an accomplice in a murder and the only reason they got off is it turned out this guy was plotting to kill Nobles in the city, so it turned into a justifiable homicide where they were in a Zone of Truth and tore the prosecutions argument apart in court. Though it was pretty hard to argue after it was shown that one of the PCs was drugged into helping take hostages before killing a guy.

I think in the real world you'd likely be looking it like any other case of drugging. It'd look bad on its own if the drug was illegal, it'd look bad if used for malicious reasons, and it'd look bad when given to someone without consent. However given you typically only charge on the main crime during an investigation unless you're trying to raise charges, if such a thing weren't viewed as relevant it might get waived. Kind of like if some weed is passed around before a murder or w/e. It depends on the society you're talking about.