User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 73

  1. #51
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I would suggest to you that if you didnt care you wouldnt have posted, think about it.
    I lost interest.

    If you're going to talk bollocks I'm going to stop listening.
    You never started listening, so nothing would change.

    OK you're talking bollocks, supposing that socialism is nothing more than state ownership is complete bullshit, it means that the US has been socialist since shortly after the New Deal and is presently a shinning example of socialism for the world.
    Socialism: common ownership of the means of production. The US has had a mixed economy for quite a while now.

    The reality is that getting people hooked on drugs and then exploiting their addiction to your profit is capitalist, its about maximising revenue. Its no accident that most arguments about prohibition are either made by users or pushers, it's percentages or habits talking, its not principles.
    I knew it was only a matter of time until you used this response. You can't have a drug prohibition debate without it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #52
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I lost interest.
    Not before me you didnt.


    You never started listening, so nothing would change.
    You're confusing listening with agreement. Although I understand. Reasoning isnt that easy for most of the people who suppose they're great at it, especially capitalists.

    Socialism: common ownership of the means of production. The US has had a mixed economy for quite a while now.


    Capitalism is a so called "mixed" economy, it always has been and as successive crisis have set in as consequence of its internal contradictions its become more so.

    I've no problem with your definition of socialism, common ownership is the same as state ownership then? Really? Capitalists are pretty fond of common ownership then, at least by the present fiscal bail out's standards.

    I knew it was only a matter of time until you used this response. You can't have a drug prohibition debate without it.
    Yeah, well, as someone whose never had an interest in abusing habit forming substances which are likely to make me someone elses bitch, in fact as someone whose not a fan of chronic dependency of any sort, I generally dont care about or for drugs.

    The people who do and want and often need them will have their arguments, dress it up as freedom, individual sovereignty, all those things because the reality of shooting up shit or smoking shit or snorting shit and how it makes you behave arent persuasive enough by themselves to anyone to encourage them to want public policy which will make it more common place.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Fan.of.Devin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INT-
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Smells like ad hominem in here.
    INTP 4w5 SX/SP
    Tritype 4/5/8

  4. #54
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,781

    Default

    I'm not a user except weed, maybe 4 times a year at most, or a pusher and I'm for drug decriminilaziation, not just weed either.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  5. #55
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Hmmmm...It makes perfect sense to me, that decrimilisation works to solve the drug problem. Nothings ever fixed by by pushing it underground. Legalising it would work even better. Not only that, I would presume drug related crime went down too.
    Note the article mentioned they were still persuing the big time dealers and suppliers.
    I agree drugs ruin peoples lives, but so does a criminal conviction for pocession of MJ when you were eighteen/nineteen, I'm mean certain high powered careers are crossed off right off the bat and it only serves to push people toward a life style, they wouldn't otherwise choose. Who deserves a half life because they screwed up when they were young and stupid. Seriously look at the bigger picture, so many problems reduced, and more managable because of one law change.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #56
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    I'm going to have to discuss this in a much more simplistic fashion I reckon.

    Do you believe that more or less people would experiment with or use or become addicted to drugs if they where legal or not?

    Do you think that becoming dependent upon drugs for a good time, feeling good, relaxing, any of the other exclusively positive reasons generally given for using drugs, is a good idea?

    Who is likely to benefit the most from being able to traffick drugs and push them as the best possible means to spend your disposable income?

    Is addiction a good thing? Does it only have consequences for the addict themselves?

    Even if you believe that we each owe each other no obligations and feel no responsibility for anyone besides yourself, perhaps not even for your dependents which is the conclusion that I've seen some hardened libertarian reasoners reach have you ever been adversely effected by the behaviour of an addict or drug user? Was it a mere inconvenience or was it something more serious? Do you think its going to be less likely occurence or a more likely occurence if drugs are more available, more popular and their effects more likely to be encountered by users and non-users alike?

    I hate debates like these because I ALWAYS feel like I'm speaking to someone who speaks a different language without a translator, the same stock and trade abstract arguments are made about freedom, nanny state, victimless crime etc. etc. which totally and utterly miss the point.

    Ultimately the question is pretty simple, why be sober? Why's it important that the majority of people remain sober for the majority of their time? And what's likely to make or break the norms associated with that.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm going to have to discuss this in a much more simplistic fashion I reckon.

    Do you believe that more or less people would experiment with or use or become addicted to drugs if they where legal or not?
    There would be no (or negligible) change. The primary factor with the issue of addiction isn't access to drugs, it's psychological. Some people have addictive or self destructive personalities. They will find a way to medicate, regardless of the law.

    Do you think that becoming dependent upon drugs for a good time, feeling good, relaxing, any of the other exclusively positive reasons generally given for using drugs, is a good idea?
    In most cases, no (there are always exceptions). But I don't believe drug prohibition reduces drug the incidence of drug addiction.

    Who is likely to benefit the most from being able to traffick drugs and push them as the best possible means to spend your disposable income?
    This is a loaded question that is not worth answering.

    Is addiction a good thing? Does it only have consequences for the addict themselves?
    I don't like to call things "good" or "bad", but in general, no, addiction is not a good thing. However every action (whether drug related or not) anyone takes has consequences for others. There are an infinite number of possible behaviors that an individual could have that would have negative consequences for society. How far do you want to take this? I don't want to live in a society where micromanaging behavior becomes the norm.

    Even if you believe that we each owe each other no obligations and feel no responsibility for anyone besides yourself, perhaps not even for your dependents which is the conclusion that I've seen some hardened libertarian reasoners reach have you ever been adversely effected by the behaviour of an addict or drug user?
    Another loaded question, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, I have been.

    Was it a mere inconvenience or was it something more serious?
    It was an inconvenience. I was not dependent on this person.

    Do you think its going to be less likely occurence or a more likely occurence if drugs are more available, more popular and their effects more likely to be encountered by users and non-users alike?
    It would make no difference because the individual in question had/has issues with self-destructive behavior. If it wasn't drugs that he was abusing, he would have been involved with something else equally self-destructive.

    I hate debates like these because I ALWAYS feel like I'm speaking to someone who speaks a different language without a translator, the same stock and trade abstract arguments are made about freedom, nanny state, victimless crime etc. etc. which totally and utterly miss the point.
    No, they don't miss the point. Your position is based on a false premise, that access to drugs is the primary concern when it comes to drug addiction. It's not. The greatest concern is psychological (and there are others that also precede "access"). Greater access might increase the number of people who dabble, but it won't have a measurable effect on the number of addicts. You place far too much value on the issue of access, so much that you consider all other aspects of the debate to be nullified.

    Ultimately the question is pretty simple, why be sober? Why's it important that the majority of people remain sober for the majority of their time? And what's likely to make or break the norms associated with that.
    These are the wrong questions to ask.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #58
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Not before me you didnt.
    Initially, I was curious (about the term). But then you posted a snarky response, so it became clear to me that this was only some sort of posturing exercise. Hence, I lost my interest.

    You're confusing listening with agreement. Although I understand. Reasoning isnt that easy for most of the people who suppose they're great at it, especially capitalists.
    No, you're not listening. The reason I know you're not listening is because your critique of opposing positions is abysmal. You don't understand why we have different positions. If you were listening, you would have a better understanding (which is not the same as agreeing).
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #59
    Senior Member Fan.of.Devin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INT-
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Do you think that becoming dependent upon drugs for a good time, feeling good, relaxing, any of the other exclusively positive reasons generally given for using drugs, is a good idea?
    Dependent, no.
    Otherwise, yes.
    Drugs can be fantastic for utilitarian purposes and recreation alike, when used responsibly and intelligently.
    Much like many other aspects of life, when irresponsibility and stupidity are part of the equation, bad things can happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Is addiction a good thing? Does it only have consequences for the addict themselves?
    Again with "addiction"... It seems to be the focal point of your argument.
    I mean, what the hell kind of a question is this, anyway?
    "Is addiction good?" Are you fucking serious? Or are you trying to illustrate a point through extreme sardonicism...
    Do you REALLY believe that ANYONE thinks addiction is a good thing...?

    How exactly do you view mind altering substances, in this regard?
    I'm getting a very "reefer madness" vibe here... In your world, if you use something once, your life spirals into an abysmal black hole of no return? Or what?
    You are effectively arguing that anyone who is opposed to substance control laws either a: thinks addiction is awesome and we need more of it, or b: is completely ignorant to the fact that addiction will skyrocket.
    You seemingly don't care to acknowledge the possibility that somebody could arrive at, through reasonable logic, the conclusion that addiction will either be improved or unaffected by a lack of substance control.

    If you need to automatically reduce anyone who disagrees with you to an idiot or an ignoramus, I suggest you have some deep thinking to do about the views you hold on this subject.

    You sound like a definite adherent of "Voodoo Pharmacology".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Even if you believe that we each owe each other no obligations and feel no responsibility for anyone besides yourself, perhaps not even for your dependents which is the conclusion that I've seen some hardened libertarian reasoners reach have you ever been adversely effected by the behaviour of an addict or drug user? Was it a mere inconvenience or was it something more serious?
    Yes... A few very serious incidents, and a lot of inconvenient ones.
    But, I'm not going to go measure dicks with you on this topic, so if you were looking for specific incidents, nevermind; just take my word for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Do you think its going to be less likely occurence or a more likely occurence if drugs are more available, more popular and their effects more likely to be encountered by users and non-users alike?
    I think it will have either no or negligible consequences in either direction.

    I also don't care either way, ethically.
    If you could prove to me, beyond a statistical doubt, that more people would be harmed if drugs we're legalized, I would still be in favor of their legalization.
    Much the same as I would still be in favor of gun ownership rights if they we're proven to increase incidents of gun violence (even though they don't, they actually do quite dramatically the opposite).

    Despite the fact that I believe drug legalization would have unilaterally positive effects, I still believe that freedom is more important than safety, and that is ultimately the underlying reason I am opposed to substance control.
    If you disagree with that, fine, great. Then we are making progress.
    If you honestly believe the shit you said in your next paragraph, however, then nobody has anything to gain from this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I hate debates like these because I ALWAYS feel like I'm speaking to someone who speaks a different language without a translator, the same stock and trade abstract arguments are made about freedom, nanny state, victimless crime etc. etc. which totally and utterly miss the point.
    The fact that somebody may have the audacity to hold an opposing view to yours doesn't make their position any more stock and trade or apt to miss the point than your own. It just happens to contradict your model, which apparently makes you more inclined to immediately dismiss it than pontificate on it for very long.

    You claim to perfectly understand the opposing side here, but it's really very obvious that you don't, and probably don't have any desire to.
    INTP 4w5 SX/SP
    Tritype 4/5/8

  10. #60
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    OK guys when you chop up my posts like that.

    Safe to assume I'm not going to read it.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] infp & estp... does it work?
    By tolzart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 11-16-2016, 01:39 AM
  2. [MBTItm] ENFP Female + ISTJ male-How to make it work
    By SPARKles in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 09-28-2011, 06:09 PM
  3. INTPc? It Works. Apparently.
    By LowEnd in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-15-2008, 02:56 AM
  4. now I went and did it. oops. now what?
    By grasshoppersings in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 12:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO