Mmmmmm OKAY. Now I see why I was confused. I think its because this has what exactly nothing to do with your faulty comparison between drug users and heros of the civil rights movement. Or a drug user’s monetary support for real bad things. My fault. If you want to discuss the rationale and uses of forfeiture law, I think that’d make a fine thread on its own.
Ahh, it’s all so clear now, he didn’t want a reasoned debate he just wanted to keep us talking until he could make a chart where we could be easily categorized and cross-referenced.
“well EJsGirl kind of fits in this category.”
“Hurry up we’ve got a deadline”
“doesn’t care.”
Erek
I proudly put myself in the “don’t care” catagory with my first post, actually!
I’m going to go rape a 9 year old girl.
Erek
Woo Hoo! My first convert! The solution is to stop putting your money in a system that causes so much harm! Yeeeeehaw!
Awwww, fuck! There goes my convert. I thought I was dealing with somebody who had the ability to understand a coherent argument and maybe make a counterpoint that actually means something. However, you are right about one thing: This is a rant. I think your decision to spend money on drugs is selfish, shortsighted, irresponsible, and ignores the great amount of harm you are doing to soceity. I think you convince yourself that you’re not, in fact, monetarily supporting very bad things by blaming the government rather than looking at your own actions.
Well, seeing as how you’ve proven to me the value of your opinion is nil, I don’t feel so bad.
Yes, but SUV owners are the only ones you are talking about. No one is sponsering commercials to tell people to stop using leafblowers. SUVs are en vouge to attack by little know-nothings who like going after big targets instead of effecting real change. Why aren’t the commercials going after the oil companies the commericals themselves say are giving money to the countires and their terrorists? because attacking Exxon isn’t what Joe Hatchback wants, he wants SUV blood. So it gets delivered, Joe Hatchback feels like he is saving the world just because he is killing it at an incrementally slower rate, and innocent people are demonized by idiots with money.
I think the law you expect me to support is shortsighted, irresponsible, and causes far more harm to society than its removal would.
Dude, get a fucking clue. I support murder as much as the law does which is not at all, and in fact both the law and I agree that such acts should be punished. Your careless consequentialistic equivocation is as transparent as your fucking argument.
I do not support murder, and neither does the law against drugs, though both of those actions can be said to directly contribute to murders. I don’t blame the law anymore than I blame myself. I blame murderers for murder. As, I would expect, any sensible person would do.
Hamlet, you’re the brain-addled, self-righteous, delusional idiot, and like most brain-addled, self-righteous, delusional idiot you are too thick to see it. Here’s a heads up: People can either buy booze from the liquor store, or they can buy it from Al Capone. Only a brain-addles, self-righteous, delusional idiot would choose the latter. We’re not talking about killing or robbing or raping or stealing, we’re talking about ingesting chemicals. If there is violence associated with it, it is because brain-addled, self-righteous, delusional idiots are too busy imposing their half-baked “values” on other people to actually think about what causes the problem, dick. You really must some kind of half-witted, goose-stepping, jack-booted shit-bag. What part of “land of the free” don’t you understand? You Hitler-riffic, Stalin-aholic, Pol-Pot-sucking fuck stick.
My thesis is thus proved. You really are an ingnorant, bone-headed moron. Do the fucking math, nitwit. Since you’re obviously too god damn stupid to do it yourself, here’s some information from someone who has. Here, just so you understand the article: Urban means “in a big city,” whereas rural means “in the country.” That’ll help clear some things up for you, doofus.
Also, retard, if you really cared about what SUVs allegedly do, you’d write a sensible piece in GD explaining how the down-sides need to be priced into the product. But you probably can’t understand that, can you? Hell, you probably don’t even understand that SUV owners are more accutely aware of the reliance on oil because they have to buy more gas. I’m suprised you can even figure out how to type a message.
And is buying oil so bad? You must really hate the poor, because in many countries that’s the biggest export. But you don’t care about them, do you, jackass? You care about your beliefs–and you don’t give a flying fuck if they correspond to reality. It’s idiots like you that brought us the Inquisition.
30% of human protein consumption comes from synthetic nitrogen. To replace it, we would have to bring under cultivation an additional quantity of land equal to 1/4 of the Earth’s current forest cover. You are so fucking stupid! The Green Revolution is one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments, and you want to piss it away because you’re too god damn self-righteous to think.
You’re a god damn piece of shit.
Now again, I will explain that i don’t think your SUV should be taken from you. (I feel the need to explain this every post otherwise I’ll have to respond to some sardonic post accusing me of such)
Anyway, I think the “Killing the Earth incrementally” argument is specious. The Earth is capable of synthesizing a certain amount of waste. It’s only when that amount of waste becomes too great that we have problems with our environment. So the incremental argument is rather silly as it contributes to the overall problem of the inability of the environment to compete with human waste. So actually, the person driving a prius isn’t killing the environment incrementally less than you are, if EVERYONE were driving a Prius then the world would be much better able to cope with humanity. Now the ozone hole is closing, and I am skeptical about whether or not humans are actually killing the environment overall anyway. The thing is that cities and such are dirtier because of cars (though not as dirty as they were 100 years ago, you couldn’t light the Hudson on fire these days) we fight most of our wars because of oil, and therefore your greater consumption isn’t a matter of increments, it’s a matter of wasteful and not wasteful.
I used the example of bodily extensions. I believe that’s what tools are. We have to feed them, and there is a difference between eating your fill and being a glutton.
However, if you do in fact believe in the incremental argument, then you’re an asshole for killing the Earth that much more quickly, because maybe it was in the thousand years that you cut us off from that the problem of human extinction on Earth was resolved.
I think we are making great strides and I think that progress takes care of it’s own, however it’s exactly this dialogue that creates that sort of progress.
Erek
This was in response to my “why not?” comment/ideology.
mswas, you have shown yourself to be an intelligent poster who can debate pretty well. Don’t screw the pooch with something like that. Even if you’re kidding or being sarcastic, it’s dumb.
Whatever.
Never heard that before. Great phrase.
I was illustrating why “Because I can” is not a valid response.
Erek
EJsGirl: Yes there are matters of degree, but the point of debate is to decide where the degrees are seperated. And that is exactly the contention up for debate here. Some people believe that the behavior of owning an SUV when it’s absolutely unecessary rides the line of acceptability. The other side seems to believe that their choices should be unquestionable. Well, that side needs to wake up and realize, guess what, they’re being questioned.
Erek
Who decides what’s acceptable? Or necessary? Not you, I hope.
Question me all you like. I am not required to justify my choices to you under the guise of a “debate” (especially when it’s really just a bash).
If I give you a bunch of information that explains why I have an SUV and you say “oh, ok, I guess it is necessary for YOU, but not the rest of them” then what? What will the next person have to say? Will they be judged based on my needs? Or the needs of someone who drives a Honda Civic?
I don’t know, this just seems kind of pointless. Every week it seems there is another thread exactly like this one, and no-one seems to change anyone else’s mind. I wonder why that is. Maybe because in the case of what vehicle one chooses to drive, the notion of the freedom to choose whatever one likes is reasonable. I won’t even revisit using screwing a 9 year old as a correlation and thinking it makes some kind of sense.
Interjecting myself without invitation, may I suggest that “necessary” does not constitute an acceptable criterion for whether a behavior is acceptable? Imagine if the necassary criterion were applied to your life. How much of what you do qualifies as necessary? I sure hope you don’t eat ice cream! Wearing anything other than the most Spartan and functional clothes should be strictly prohibited–it’s not necessary. The necessary criterion should be rejected out of hand. It can not be universally applied, in even the remotest sense.
And God forbid somebody have the audicity to suggest option c: not buying it at all.
No, you are talking about ingesting chemicals. I am talking about in your fervent desire to ingest chemicals, you are giving money to a system that kills almost 2 people a day.
Please reference any of the 35 other times in this thread when I responded to this argument.
**
God, it took 5 pages before somebody invoked Hitler. And throw in Stalin and Pol-Pot too. Great argument. I have no response.
Oh wait, yes I do: Even if you believe you have every right in the world to smoke dope, you are still wrong for supporting a system that does very bad things to do it. Here’s an analogy for you: I have every right in the world to do what I want with my money. However, if I gave it to Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, I would be wrong. Get it? It’s not about rights, it’s about taking responsibility for your choices.
Which thesis is that? That you “right” to get high is more important than the dead bodies your money goes to support? Or the thesis that you can spew insults, raise the Nazi flag, and not deal with the issues I’ve raised. That’s one “thesis” that you have indeed proven.
**
Just going to interject a note that I find that term offensive. Not that fact that you insult me, that means next to nothing, but using that term in particular indicates something to me about you.
**
Keep digging…
Ummm, Sure…
:backing away slowly:
Damn those small, family owned farms and their organic produce!!! They’re ruining the planet!!
And, once again for those who still have problems with reading comprehension: I don’t expect you to support drug laws. It is of no relevance to my argument whether you do or not. What I am saying is that you shouldn’t financially support the illicit drug trade.
If my argument is so transparant, why do you seem to have such a difficult time grasping it? I’ve stated it, refined it, defined it, stated it again, then responded to every argument presented, then stated it again, then answered questions, got cites, and stated it yet again. And you’re still not getting it.
And I think your view of your own responsibility for your choices is extremelly limited. Just because you aren’t out there pulling the trigger or rooting for drug dealers to shoot undercover officers, does not mean you are not giving them money knowing that those actions are a byproduct. Your high is just more important to you.
Fine, there’s C. Don’t buy it at all. But it is, and should be, just one of many choices available. It shouldn’t be the only choice. The government shouldn’t say “you can’t injest alcohol if you desire.” You shouldn’t be saying it either.
In a perfect world, everyone would act perfectly. Short of that, why do you seem to be against allowing people the ability to choose what’s right for them?
Because what’s “right for them” results in a lot of dead bodies and ruined lives. And that’s the point I’ve made since the OP. People’s choices have consequences. One of the consequences of buying drugs is that you are financially supporting the people who do very bad things. And I think people who put more value on their high than the consequences of their actions are wrong.
Hamlet, this is a crock and you know it.
Drug laws created the illicit drug trade. If drugs were readily available, there wouldn’t be an illicit drug trade. If you’re saying that people shouldn’t financially support the illicit drug trade, challenging the notion of whether the drug laws are justified in the first place is a perfectly reasonable response to that assertion.
What you’re taking as a given is being questioned by the people debating you in this thread. Refusing to acknowledge the challenge simply weakens your argument.