Printable View
Having oral or anal sex was illegal for quite some time in my married life. Did that stop us, NO. It was still illegal. Does that mean that because we broke the sex laws that someone has the right to break the theft laws and steal our possessions?
Common sense, moral law, whatever it is cannot be and shouldn't have to be legislated.
Just out of interest, were they tourists or locals (if you could tell)?Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I was in Holland for 2 1/2 days and was accosted twice by people there who appeared to be stoned out of their minds. I wouldn't call it a success story for anyone but the stoners.
Cafeenman
OK, and just because they were acting strangely meant that they were stoned?Quote:
I was in Holland for 2 1/2 days and was accosted twice by people there who appeared to be stoned out of their minds. I wouldn't call it a success story for anyone but the stoners.
What do you mean by accosted?
And if you think Amsterdam's bad compared to where you live, take a look at the comparison between Holland and America for drug use and crime rates that I posted a while back. I know where I'd rather be...
I'm just here for the fight. I personally think things are fine the way they are. I do what I want and as long as I'm reasonable about it, nobody cares. Every once in a while I hover around the fringe of being a criminal. I'm doing ok.
Yeah right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafeenman
I personally think things are fine the way they are.
That's why drug use, drug related crime and drug related deaths are spiralling out of control at the same time as thousands of people are getting locked up and losing their liberty and their livelyhoods for doing no harm to anybody.
Yeah, everything's great! :rolleyes:
I mean on one occassion a guy came up and started trying to manhandle me on the street in broad daylight. He ended up ripping off my credit card and a little cash (which I didn't realize until later). I actually had to slug the guy to get him off of me and he ran off.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Cafeenman
What do you mean by accosted?
The second time another guy started doing the same thing to my female friend. I ran over to where she was and he ran off immediately.
I've never had anything like that happen to me in the states. I know we have a high crime rate, but that's the population, not the laws. The kids here think it's "cool" to get drunk and drive around and they usually take a few years or a bad accident to get over it.
Making drugs legal won't improve that situation.
In reference to the "moral" issue of this question, I don't think using mind-altering substances results in victimless crimes. I think a lot of people can handle their drugs just fine and have a good time without bothering anyone else. Unfortunately, there are too many people who ruin that for the rest of us and our society has deemed that for the good of all drugs should be illegal.
You're the one complaining. Harry agrees with you but he's not complaining about it. He deals with it.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Yeah right!
Yeah, everything's great! :rolleyes:
I agree with you about 10%, but I'm not complaining about the other 90%.
Wally doesn't agree with you at all, but he's not complaining either. You're the only one here who's really unhappy with the situation.
I'm not saying everything is great. But it's not bad enough for me to care to try to change it and go on a campaign.
Cafeenman
Let me tell you about an American friend of mine who had a brush with the law after smoking a joint...
Many other people have had their lives ruined by the oppressive drug laws.Quote:
...I had gotten out of the Navy. It was supposed to be the beginning of good things for me. I would have been able to start making some real money, go back to school, lots of things. But because of my charge (and conviction) I lost my job offer, because I was still in the Navy (until midnight that night) I lost my Navy college fund, I had my license taken away from me for six months (they have that option with a drug charge), I had to go into a work furlough program for 180 days (worked out to 90 - good behaviour), because of that I lost my apartment, I lost most of my possesions, I lost my cats, I lost almost everything. If it hadn't been for the support of my family I probably wouldn't have made it through all that.
Sounds like you were mugged. The normal reaction is to assume they were stoned and if they were, assume that the drug caused them to behave like that.Quote:
I mean on one occassion a guy came up and started trying to manhandle me on the street in broad daylight. He ended up ripping off my credit card and a little cash (which I didn't realize until later). I actually had to slug the guy to get him off of me and he ran off.
The second time another guy started doing the same thing to my female friend. I ran over to where she was and he ran off immediately.
They were just low life twats. Drugs have nothing to do with it.
They were Dutch Success Story low life twats who were either psychotic or on drugs. I'm guessing drugs, but I don't know that for a fact. But it was obvious they weren't all there.
Cafeenman
Do you have any reason to believe this? I have already listed several ways in which the situation can be improved by legalising drugs. Is there any particular point I made that you disagree with or do you just have a gut feeling that I'm wrong?Quote:
Making drugs legal won't improve that situation.
I have two reasons since drugs haven't been legal in my lifetime, I can only compare it to what I consider to be similar:Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Cafeenman
Do you have any reason to believe this? I have already listed several ways in which the situation can be improved by legalising drugs. Is there any particular point I made that you disagree with or do you just have a gut feeling that I'm wrong?
#1 - Alcohol. I already talked about that in an earlier post.
#2 - The United States is an immature society. It is also an extremely diverse society. Much more so than the average European community. A lot of people here are really unhappy, but somewhat inhibited. Many drugs remove those inhibitions and people act crazy and then don't take responsibility. They blame the drugs.
For example, the Navy guy who lost everything. The law didn't do that to him. He did it to himself. He knew the risks in advance and decided that getting stoned or whatever he did was worth it. He got caught. It was his choice.
I simply think that laws should be abided even if it is morally right to break them.
I'll come you halfway, deal ?
Morally : possibly, under extreme circumstances.
Should you do it : no, you shouldn't.
If it's morally possible then maybe law adaptation is in order and this should be submitted to the law making body. If it's legally foreseen and if the justice deems it right then the law may be waived. But should you take the law in your own hands ? No, not at all.
I can't really totally agree with you here. Yes, it was his choice to take drugs, and he made that choice, but I don't think it's fair to say that the law didn't do the damage. If he did something stupid because he couldn't handle them, then yes it was his fault, but I think the legal trouble he should be in would be for whatever he did while under the influence. If the drug taking itself wasn't a crime, this guy wouldn't have had a problem.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
For example, the Navy guy who lost everything. The law didn't do that to him. He did it to himself. He knew the risks in advance and decided that getting stoned or whatever he did was worth it. He got caught. It was his choice.
I don't know about the US Navy but in the Air Force they will give you a chance to do rehab before they muster you out! I think there may have been extenuating circumstance in the case of Simon's friend.
Laws aren't just made to punish those who break them. The penalties are there to provide a certain amount of discouragement from breaking them. In any case, crime is a risky business. I don't feel sorry for the guy. I'd feel sorry for me if it happened to me, but I care enough about what happens to me that I'm not going to put myself in that situation. Apparently he didn't.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
I can't really totally agree with you here. Yes, it was his choice to take drugs, and he made that choice, but I don't think it's fair to say that the law didn't do the damage. If he did something stupid because he couldn't handle them, then yes it was his fault, but I think the legal trouble he should be in would be for whatever he did while under the influence. If the drug taking itself wasn't a crime, this guy wouldn't have had a problem.
I can't bring myself to agree with this even slightly. If the law is binding you to do something that is morally wrong, you should only comply with that law you feel the consequences of your actions would be worse if you did the right thing. Ie you get convicted of a crime and something bad happens.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
I simply think that laws should be abided even if it is morally right to break them.
I will do what I consider to be the right thing, so long as I think I can get away with it. You had better believe I am gonna run that red light to make sure my friend gets to hospital.
I agree with you 100% on this. Although I've never been in a situation where it was a life or death emergency that I smoke a joint. :)Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
I can't bring myself to agree with this even slightly. If the law is binding you to do something that is morally wrong, you should only comply with that law you feel the consequences of your actions would be worse if you did the right thing. Ie you get convicted of a crime and something bad happens.
I will do what I consider to be the right thing, so long as I think I can get away with it. You had better believe I am gonna run that red light to make sure my friend gets to hospital.
He was out of the Navy, Katie. All the US armed forces have rehab programs, but it's ultimately up to the commander. I've known guys who got caught one time, lost all their rank, spent some time in jail and then got a dishonorable discharge. I know another guy who had 2 DUI's and then got caught with extacy and lost his license for a few months and a slap on the wrist. No money or rank taken and he got promoted later that year.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
I don't know about the US Navy but in the Air Force they will give you a chance to do rehab before they muster you out! I think there may have been extenuating circumstance in the case of Simon's friend.
From a "what would I do?" point of view, I agree with you. From the "is this a reasonable situation?" point of view, I don't think it's reasonable that this guy should be made into a criminal.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Laws aren't just made to punish those who break them. The penalties are there to provide a certain amount of discouragement from breaking them. In any case, crime is a risky business. I don't feel sorry for the guy. I'd feel sorry for me if it happened to me, but I care enough about what happens to me that I'm not going to put myself in that situation. Apparently he didn't.
That is really flawed, man. If you know something is illegal and you willfully choose to do it anyway, nobody "made" you into a criminal. You chose it. Maybe the "should" be changed, but nobody tied the guy down and made him smoke the weed. He decided that the law didn't apply to him.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
From a "what would I do?" point of view, I agree with you. From the "is this a reasonable situation?" point of view, I don't think it's reasonable that this guy should be made into a criminal.
Yeah, in the same way that nobody "made" homosexuals into criminals in older times. They chose to engage in those activities so they deserve everything they got... right?
Right! Exactly! Good point!Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Yeah, in the same way that nobody "made" homosexuals into criminals in older times. They chose to engage in those activities so they deserve everything they got... right?
I mean, I'm going to let Katie handle this one. Katie?
CM is right here.
You decide, you face the consequences.
Don't go shrugging off responsability because it suits you better.
You hold yourself the right to choose, you chose to ignore the law, you face the consequences.
As simple as that.
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
I am doing something. I'm helping to educate the masses.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
I've had it with salonrevolutionaries:
Well, that is my intent. I'm probably talking to a bunch of people who either agree with me or will refuse to agree with me, regardless of how right I may or may not be.
But by educating the voting public, I can hopefully get more votes towards parties that actually have some clue of how a government that values liberty, justice, and freedom works.
In America, the Republican party is so against freedom it isn't even funny. I like to think of the Republican party as Nazi-light, or Southern Baptist Extreme. The Democratic party, while slightly more aware, still finds itself voting on the wrong side of many issues.
While they may not be perfect, I can suggest looking into the Libertarian party, or sensible Democratic canidates.
Oh, and the other thing I was doing was shoping Arbiter how stupid the majority rule arguement is.
on the question of drugs - I don't know whether more people would take drugs if they were decriminalised. I don't know whether it would be more dangerous to walk down the street for fear of being mowed down by a driver under the influence. I would, however, be happier that the government was giving them away at the taxpayers expense than that they were funding gangs of gun-toting organised criminals.
I'd like to see them regulated more strongly. I'd like to see the government sanction drugs to certain areas of society. I'd like to see drug pushers taken off our streets. I'd like police to go easy on personal users in their own homes.
But it's not a perfect world, is it?
On a huge tangent...Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
I'd be careful with this comment.
I personally don't see any indication that there is a genetic predisposition to sexual orientation. So no, I don't think being gay is something you are born to do.
By the same token, I don't think being abusive is a genetic trait. I don't think it is something you are born to do.
In both of these cases though, the subject doesn't choose to be abusive or gay. He is taught that, programmed with it, through his environment.
While it is possible to unlearn abusive behavoir, I imagine it is possible to unlearn homosexuality. Both of these procedures would be akin to brainwashing. And in both cases it would be possible to teach abusive behavour and unlearn heterosexuality.
To further complicate the issue. I do imagine there are genetic traits which will lend you to being more subsceptible to a certain lifestyle. For example, a person with a natrually short temper may react more dramaticly to an environment that teaches abuse.
Ofcourse, seperating the genetic predispositions toward certain tendancies from the environmental influence that instill certain behavours is probably a pretty impossible task.
This is just a tangent anyway.
Whoa!!! Hold on there a minute, Travis! This post is so incredibly riddle with arrogance I don't know where to begin. Although you know that I agree with you as far as the Rep v. Dem issue....that doesn't discount others opinions. The I'm right and you're wrong approach does nothing to educate the masses....it just pisses them off!Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I am doing something. I'm helping to educate the masses.
Well, that is my intent. I'm probably talking to a bunch of people who either agree with me or will refuse to agree with me, regardless of how right I may or may not be.
But by educating the voting public, I can hopefully get more votes towards parties that actually have some clue of how a government that values liberty, justice, and freedom works.
In your opinion.
In America, the Republican party is so against freedom it isn't even funny. I like to think of the Republican party as Nazi-light, or Southern Baptist Extreme. The Democratic party, while slightly more aware, still finds itself voting on the wrong side of many issues.
in your opinion
While they may not be perfect, I can suggest looking into the Libertarian party, or sensible Democratic canidates.
Oh, and the other thing I was doing was shoping Arbiter how stupid the majority rule arguement is.
On a huge tangent...Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Homosexuality is not a life-choice. It is who you are. Smoking dope is a choice you make.
I'd be careful with this comment.
I personally don't see any indication that there is a genetic predisposition to sexual orientation. So no, I don't think being gay is something you are born to do.
By the same token, I don't think being abusive is a genetic trait. I don't think it is something you are born to do.
In both of these cases though, the subject doesn't choose to be abusive or gay. He is taught that, programmed with it, through his environment.
While it is possible to unlearn abusive behavoir, I imagine it is possible to unlearn homosexuality. Both of these procedures would be akin to brainwashing. And in both cases it would be possible to teach abusive behavour and unlearn heterosexuality.
To further complicate the issue. I do imagine there are genetic traits which will lend you to being more subsceptible to a certain lifestyle. For example, a person with a natrually short temper may react more dramaticly to an environment that teaches abuse.
Ofcourse, seperating the genetic predispositions toward certain tendancies from the environmental influence that instill certain behavours is probably a pretty impossible task.
This is just a tangent anyway.
ME TOO! ME TOO! I'm not opinionated - I'm educating stupid people who don't see things my way!Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I am doing something. I'm helping to educate the masses.
LOL@Cafeenman!
Travis you are wrong about homosexuals and predisposition...and it wasn't a tangent if you care to read the post above!:p
Majority Rule == Majority OpinionQuote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
ME TOO! ME TOO! I'm not opinionated - I'm educating stupid people who don't see things the logical way!
Liberty and Justice shouldn't care about your opinion.
I could be wrong. But if I am... if sexual orientation is a genetic trait... well...Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Travis you are wrong about homosexuals and predisposition.
A cancerous tumor is a result of a genetic abberation in the reproduction of a cell. The species gains no benefit from the existance of homosexuals. If homosexuality is caused by a genetic sequence, it is logical to conclude that that genetic sequence is an abberation. If homosexuality is genetically caused, it is the same as being albino.
But... to prove or disprove the point... if it is not a genetic abberation, then how does a recesive homosexual gene survive?
Sorry, I just don't see how it is genetic. It isn't a concious choice, but it isn't genetic.
Do you truly believe that your way is the only logical way on all issues? Is everything black and white? I wish I had as much faith that I'm always right as you do. Unfortunately, I do like to keep an open mind.
We like you in spite of your shortcomings, Katie. How's the therapy coming, by the way?Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Unfortunately, I do like to keep an open mind.
By the way, CT's logic is illogical. My logic is right and doesn't agree with his, therefore he must be wrong.
In spite of my therapist being a raving Republican, my therapy is failing miserably! I still think people should have a right to their opinions. To be honest with you I even enjoy hearing their viewpoints from time to time, but don't tell anyone. So as you can see, I have a long way to go before being cured.
I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong and I'm willing to change my mind.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Do you truly believe that your way is the only logical way on all issues? Is everything black and white? I wish I had as much faith that I'm always right as you do. Unfortunately, I do like to keep an open mind.
But it is very hard to do so when the only counter I hear is that I must be concieted to have an opinion. I guess the only reason I haven't changed my mind is not because I refuse to believe I'm wrong, but because everyone else refuses to show me where I'm wrong (and that soundbite is an exaggeration, but works in this thread).
So... homosexuality is genetically determined? Where is the proof?
Yes, we are so far in a tangent it isn't even funny.
To prove that it is genetically determined, you must show that any homosexual shares the same gene, and that that gene does not express amoung the heterosexual population. You must also show that gene can remain part of a sexually reproductive species for as long as it has.
While it is possible that the first part is true and merely something we haven't been able to uncover, I think the second part will prove more interesting. If such a gene has existed, why? Even the genes that cause the potentially fatal conditions of sickle-cell anemia and hemophelia have an actual use in the population. I'm curious as to the use of the homosexual gene.
If it makes you feel even better, CiderThug, even though I think you're generally full of, especially when it comes to cats, I agree with you on this one. I don't think homosexuality is genetic either. I think it's environmental. I just got tired of arguing about it because there's no way to prove it one way or the other. And there's not a homosexual in the world who would admit that they became gay because they could never get over their fear of girls or whatever. I'm back in caveman mode now.
Expressing your opinion is fine but if you can't see the arrogance of your original post then I'm afraid we'll never be able to debate the issues.
I really can't google homosexuality at work so I can't provide you with any facts right now. I have business after work until Friday but I will get back to you. I'm not trying to avoid this issue. I just don't have the tools right now.
Thanks, Cafeen. Though at this point, what is most important is not whether you agree, but whether I make sense. Whether the rationale in my post is really rational.
Speaking of my cat... he has feline lukemia (kitty HIV) and toxoplasmosis, aswell as some blood parasite. I suspect he has had the lukemia since birth, but we will get a better idea this Friday when we do more blood work.
In any case, he is now, and forever more, an indoor cat.
Katie, fair enough. I probably won't be able to check on Friday, so it may be Monday before I get back to you. I suspect though that you will find several studies that support your claim, but they will all be inconclusive. I could find studies that support my claim, but they wouldn't necessarily be any more conclusive.
Whether or not it is genetic, it should be kept quiet. If the right wing finds out that it is a genetic condition, then they will classify it with any number of genetic illnesses. Homosexuals are better off if it truely isn't genetic. This isn't the reason why I think it isn't genetic, it is just the reason why I brought up the fine point in the first place.
Oh, also, arrogance in which original post?