If he did, the drug lords would have to kill him.
And there are some dumbfucks who believe that Viagra will give you a heart attack.
Bolding mine.
I can’t agree with the OP as long as Rosie O’Donnell lives.
I couldn’t find anything. I read about this on the BBC in about 2000. Everything I could come up with on google using search strings involving DEA, colombia, supercomputer, phone records, etc… only came up with government computers that analyze phone records, and the cartels using them to heavily encrypt their data.
Sorry no cite on this one. Ahh well.
Erek
Well then enjoy your blindness!
I leave for a few days and the mass of people manage to totally miss the point of my little parody. It seems safe to presume you’re all brainless fucktards, then, though I can’t really be certain of that without further data. Still though: strawman my ass.
The original post is nothing more than a ridiculous call for all people who don’t share this guy’s opinions (and some pretty harebrained opinions at that) be BANNED FROM VOTING. This is not a call for reduced government; this is a call for blatant elimination of opposing persectives. It’s presumably a better way of getting what you want than carrying an armed militant takeover, but it’s the same goal. (Actually, good luck implementing it without an armed takeover; if you could otherwise, then you wouldn’t need to implement it.)
The parody was 50% what you’d get if a psychopath was writing his little list of wants rather than Erek; I freely concede that not all his points were independently stupid enough to be parodyable. Call that a strawman if you want. Though you’d then have to prove that, after Erek had eliminated all people who opposed his will from the voting pool, he wouldn’t turn out to be a closet loon.
The other 50% was direct reaction to the crap in the OP. The way he’s going on, I should be subjected to people’s secondhand crack, blatant nudity, constant profanity, whatever Erek is into. In public, and on public television, no less. I suppose these would be considered victimless crimes because, as a busybody, I don’t even rate a vote, and so can’t possibly be a victim. Myself and my children should be subjected to Erek’s secondhand meth smoke, as he’s out shaking his wang in the local supermarket, since for me to seek any sort of controls on the environment I’m in would be an infringement on his rights or whichever.
I suppose, contrariwise, I should be able to do whichever cockamaine stuff I want to, so long as it’s “victimless”. I think I’ll dump my trash in the street, and then set fire to the park. If anybody in the area happens to be bothered by the secondhand flames they need to be silenced lest they try and infringe upon my civil rights.
Not all laws are sensible, I will concede. Frankly I don’t care if you start your own little harem, and if you want to smoke whatever shit you can get to ignite in your own house then I don’t care, though I’d still rather you didn’t blow up the cul-de-sac with your meth lab. I actually wasn’t aware the government did care which religion you were, legally speaking; what have you been doing to get their attention? And as far as I’m concerned, feel free to kill yourself, though I’d really rather you didn’t do it in the vegetable aisle. (I’m funny like that.)
The issue, of course, is that there are other people who seem to disagree with you on these issues. For whatever reason. You have the option of railing against the ineffectiveness of representative government, but by instead assaulting the individual’s right to vote, you’re bypassing the problems of the legislative process and taking the problem right to the democratic forum. And in the democratic forum, majority fucking rules. Apparently there are more people who dislike encountering public nudity than there are people who enjoy it. What does that mean for the oppressed minority?
-
Change the rules. As we have a republic propped on top of the democratic part, you might try corrupting, er, influencing that. It’s been known to work.
-
Change public opinion to match yours. Good luck with that.
-
Silence opposing voices. This is the OP way. For advice on methods of implementation, take a survey of militant totalitarian regimes.
-
The Plymouth approach: leave. Then when you find your uninhabited atoll or asteroid to set up shop on, you can make your own rules, which people 400 years later can get all pissy about because they didn’t like the infrastructure and traditions you set up.
-
The Canada approach: move somewhere else. Surely somewhere there’re people who agree with you. Maybe they’ll even let you into their country. Why not?
-
Break the law. It’s fun! Whee! And heck, you might not even get caught! As long as you’re not as nudity-crazed as the OP seemed to be, anyway.
-
Shut up. Go watch Survivor or something. If having to keep your clothes on when you go to the picture show is the price of living in someplace with shopping centers, then that’s the price you pay.
Me, I do option 6, since I think that the perks of society beat the downsides of not being able to any fucking thing that crosses my little mind. What can I say, I like my broadband.
Anyway, in closing, the OP is written from the persective of an ass who thinks that he should be able to do whatever he goddamn wants and screw the opinions of everybody else. Screw as in actively suppress them, that is. I don’t really know why Erek would want to write a post from this perspective; I can’t believe he actually entertains this position. Whichever. <shrug>
I don’t use drugs, I just make them. I’m getting my blindness the old-fashioned way. :eek:
I am very flattered that begbert holds my PIT THREADS in such high esteem as to think that it actually reflects how I’d change policy.
Let me see if I can address his swell post.
Well let’s see. I do smoke whatever I want in my house. I’m white, drugs aren’t as illegal for me as they might be if I weren’t white. Meth labs could be licensed and inspected for safety if meth were legal. Or maybe if Cocaine were legal we wouldn’t see meth labs because people would just buy cocaine cuz it’s easier to get, and far less dangerous. My post wasn’t about the government it was about busybodies that care what I do to myself. I’m glad you concur about suicide. How do you feel about free suicide clinics so that people don’t have to die in pain exsanguinating in their momma’s bathtub?
Well people could maybe worry about more important issues. Issues that actually impact them personally, and are of practical concern? Like, I dunno levees come to mind. Maybe we should be spending money worrying about infrastructure and public safety rather than punishing people for paying the girl for sex with money rather than dinners and trinkets. I dunno, just a thought.
Democracy and Anarchy are the same thing, they both result in the tyranny of the majority. We have this little thing called the constitution which seems to have been intended to protect people’s individual rights so that they wouldn’t get ridden roughshod over by the rest of society. I dunno, I guess I could be wrong, most people seem to think I am.
Yeah it’s hard when people don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves unless of course that person is doing something they can focus their misplaced rage on.
Lock and load!
If I could afford a space station, I could afford the lawyer that would be able to get me off when I flayed toddlers on national television. An atoll would be dope, it’s one of my dreams.
Yeah, cuz the US never strongarms Canada into enacting legislation that fits the agenda of the current ruling party of the US.
That’s generally the way I go about it. Ironically my friends and I have been doing copious amounts of drugs for years, and it hasn’t hurt you once. We don’t get caught, because we’re not investigated, because we’re white.
Survivor is fucking boring compared to acid. If you haven’t realized it yet, I am just tired of wasting government resources trying to enforce some idea of cultural fashion norms. Call me crazy. Can someone explain to me how moralistic legislation that causes me to cover up my penis is any less ridiculous than moralistic legislation that cause women in Saudi Arabia to wear burkas?
Well I’m glad that what other people want is irrelevant because they should be willing to just shut up and take it like you do.
Actually I just think I should be able to do whatever I want when it DOESN’T AFFECT YOU IN THE SLIGHTEST WHETHER OR NOT I DO IT!
Can someone please supply me evidence that someone was actually hurt by seeing Janet Jackson’s nipple during the holiday dedicated to a four hour beer commercial?
Erek
Begbert: Oh, I think that if I got my way on this, that it would increase civilization. We’d see less desperation because people aren’t wasting time on ineffecient actions designed only to stop other people from doing shit that doesn’t really hurt the people trying to stop them.
In my morality, it’s a greater moral infringement to stop someone from smoking crack by threat of violence than it is to smoke crack. It is a greater infringement for cops to come and put me in handcuffs for walking around naked than it is for me to walk around naked.
If society will collapse because people start paying attention to maintaining their own houses order rather than letting it go to shit while worrying about someone else’s house, then perhaps society isn’t all that necessary. Me personally, I think that’s the biggest bullshit strawman argument in existence.
The most civilized situations I’ve ever seen where people were taking care of one another sharing their wealth, feeding one another, giving each other massages and other types of healing, teaching one another all occurred where people were doing lots of drugs and walking around naked.
Erek
I like to hold everybody’s pit threads in high esteem; to do otherwise would be to show them a lack of appropriate respect. I will reiterate, though, that I concluded with the note that I didn’t think that you actually held the perspectives you were putting forth, with regard to disenfranchising everyone who didn’t agree with you on various issues. Nonetheless, I felt that it was worth it to respond to the perpective as presented.
The fact that you cheerfully break the law is properly noted. One wonders why you care what the busybodies are saying, though, since you obviously don’t listen to it. Ah, yes. You want to sweep away the existence of dissenting voices. Silly me.
Optomistic, aren’t we? I’m pretty sure that people still try out dangerous things, even when both they, and alternatives, are legal.
Funny, I thought that your post was in reference to a number of government-regulated issues, and that you proposed a governmental solution. I must have been confused.
I think that you’ve got a nice false dichotomy there. And given that I hear a lot of suicides actually want to be found and stopped in some sort of ploy for garnering attention and assistance or whatever, I think that a drive-through suicide booth is a pretty stupid idea. And I seriously doubt they’d do you in for free, either.
First thing to note, when I said “What does that mean for the oppressed minority?”, I was talking about you. You’re the one who’s got all these nifty ideas that the bulk of society seems to think are full of shit. So, take your own advice. Quit bitching about the way that the society around you thinks you should keep your pants on and worry about bigger things.
What, you already do? Congratulations, you have more than one brain cell, and your previous statement that other people should worry about levees and infrastructure and public safety is a complete load of shit.
And now, the responses to what the ACTUAL options are when you disagree with the prevailing attitudes of society in a prevailingly democratic society.
Um, no. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority; it’s when the 51% require you to keep your pants on. Anarchy is where you take your pants off anyway, and then start a gunfight with anybody who has a problem with that. If you can outdraw that other 51%, then you win. See? Different. Properly speaking, anarchy is the tyranny of the individual.
To continue:
Actually, the constitution seems to be intended to keep small numbers of assholes, like aristocracies and the RNC and you, from forcing your will on the populace in general. (This is not to say it always works.) But regardless, there is a reason why most people think you’re wrong about this.
Regarding convincing other people to let you do whatever you want. Actually it’s hard to do because people tend to approach things from their own perpsective and wants and desires, rather than considering the greater good. For example, people who don’t give a fuck that other people might not want to see them nude or smell their toke smoke, and are only bothered when they come across people who won’t shut up about it (upon which our nudist toker projects his misplaced anger).
Regarding oppressing and/or slaughtering all those with different opinions than you. Presuming that you’re not being openly facetious, you are a scary, scary person and need professional help.
If you could get off after you flayed toddlers on national television, then I’d be the one faced with a society that disagreed with me on principle. Let’s just hope you can find your atoll first; if you’re really as much of an amoral, bastard sociopath as you’re putting on, I’ll be cheering when you leave.
Canada was an example case, making reference to that point in history when people chose to run to canada rather than be forced to comply with a war that they disagreed with. Catch a clue, chumwad.
Regarding breaking the law. Firstly, I don’t even live in your area, so it’s rather facetious of you to say you haven’t hurt me. And if you’ve been doing ‘copious’ amounts of drugs, I presume it’s fair to blame you for supporting an industry which has caused or incited numerous overdoses and crime related deaths over the years. I assume you don’t give a shit about that, because it hasn’t hurt you once.
And as to your again-mentioned whiteness: this isn’t a race issue, sonny.
Okay: you’re crazy. Some of your requests are downright unreasonable but that one I’m okay with.
Here’s why it’s more ridiculous to require burkas than undershorts: the number of people who who would ridicule the requirement to wear burkas is vastly outnumbered by the number of people who would ridicule the requirements for you to keep your pants on. A simple head count indicates a higher level of ridicule earned in the case of your pants. In this case, that’s also true on a worldwide scale, in addition to being true in your local area (which isn’t always the case for other, less blatantly silly issues), so your opinions are ‘universally’ ridiculous, respective to the planet earth. Though there are probably various local areas where you wouldn’t earn much ridicule at all.
Wow, you’re an ass. Fortunately, the person being marginalized in this case is you. And yes, we don’t care that you want to be out publicly smoking (illegal) drugs in the nude. Because, frankly, the majority of us think that’s dumb/dangerous/nasty. So shut the fuck up.
You ARE able to do whatever you want if it doesn’t effect anybody else. You apparently do it already. The problem is, you want to do it even when it DOES effect other people. You’re offended when people complain about things that offend them; they’d be offended if you DID the things that offended them, and they found out about it. And at the very least, to offend them is an effect. If they actually have a reason for their odd cultural preference, you might have even more of an effect than that.
I leave the question of wether people should be forced to endure things that bother them unnecessarily as an excersize for the reader. If you want a challenge, you could try to figure out why their bother is supported by society, and your bother about their bother is not.This is roughly a democracy, and they outnumber you by a hell of a lot. Have you considered moving? Or shutting up?
And as for your following post,
“Increase civilization”? What does that mean? Regardless. I think that we’d see an increase in desperation because you’d be shoving your apparently offensive lifestyle in other people’s faces, who didn’t want to see it. They’d be distressed every time they saw you wandering about naked; they’d be distressed every time they saw you sending wafts of addictive smoke into the air around them.
That’s nice. You’re entitled to your own morality. In some other people’s morality, when you smoke crack, you put everybody at risk, and are perhaps harming them outright. In some other people’s morality, whenever you strut about naked in front of people, you’re doing direct and real damage to the purity of their minds and souls, which they care about deeply. Don’t ask me wehter their morality is right; maybe it’s stupid as hell. But they do seem to outnumber you and yours by a bit.
Funny thing is, people’s houses don’t end at their walls. Optimally, they end at your walls. Everything you do ‘in public’, you’re doing in their houses. In the ‘societal’ house. This would include the stuff you do in your own house which effects, one way or the other, the societal house. And, at a very literal level, if people cannot agree on a set of acceptible behaviours for the ‘societal house’, then society HAS collapsed. Look up the word if you like.
- That’s nice.
- Other people might differ with you on the definition of ‘civilized’.
- Such a situation requires the agreement of the members of the members of participants, yes? The voluntary agreement?
- Modern USA society wouldn’t be in agreement about such a society. So, it ain’t gonna happen, not here and now.
And, in conclusion:
5) Suppressing everybody else is not the way to make such a civilization. Not the civilized way, anyway.
Have a nice day!
With a good night’s sleep behind me, I reflect that massive list posts where one ferrets out every little targetable detail of their opponent’s posts aren’t polite. So, I’ll summarize up the post above, as succinctly as possible.
-
I’m not at all impressed with your disjointed attempt to state that you’re correct about all the policy point previously discussed blah blah blah.
-
You seem to be putting forth a rather selfish and silly-looking double standard where your opinions rule without debate and others are silenced blah blah blah.
-
Under a democracy -which we’re under- majority rules blah blah blah.
-
Here’s why: a social contract is when blah blah blah.
-
Hopefully you aren’t serious about all the toddlers blah blah blah.
-
Some rather rude blah blah blah 'cause you torqued me off a bit. Sorry 'bout that.
-
A little more blah blah blah, just for luck.
I believe that summarizes my previous post rather well. For convenience one can refer to this summary instead of the previous diatribe, if one likes: your choice.
You’ve never met my ex-wife.
You’re a hypocrite, I’ll attempt to explain.
You put your right to not see me smoking a joint naked above my right not to live in a cage for doing so. I’m advocating inconveniencing you for the amount of time it takes you to turn away, you are talking about inconveniencing me for a time from a day to a couple years. Yet I am the self socio-path. BTW this is a race issue, because the likelihood of a black guy selling pot getting caught is higher because he’s more likely to be profile. Statistically he is more likely to be convicted. In the case where both are convicted independently the likelihood that his sentence will be stiffer than mine is is higher, statistically. Those sort of statistics are presented to fine upstanding morally virtuous citizens like yourself all the time, and roundly ignored. If you are the morally virtuous citizens, I kind of like it on the amoral sociopath side of the fence thank you very much.
- Under a democracy -which we’re under- majority rules blah blah blah.
Yes, a democracy is that, but that doesn’t preclude me from shooting people naked, and getting stopped. Democracy is still the same as anarchy, as it does not pre-empt me from exacting my will should it be in opposition to the will of the majority. Also the will of the majority is based upon ignorance when it comes to drugs, as the system is self-perpetuating. We cannot verify whether or not drugs are truly as bad as they are said to be because we cannot study their effects legally.
- Here’s why: a social contract is when blah blah blah.
The Social Contract is kind of irrelevant here as we are arguing about which woudl make a better healthier society. I still think you’re a tool.
- Hopefully you aren’t serious about all the toddlers blah blah blah.
I was absolutely serious about being able to get out of jail free were I wealthy enough to colonize and asteroid. When you ask someone to leave America for dissenting with the opinion of the ignorant majority, you are missing the whole point of this country, which is that we were given the ability to CHANGE THINGS when the society becomes morrally bankrupt.
Heh, no problem.
Lucky 7s.
I think the person most directly hurt by Janet Jackson’s nipple was Janet herself who received fines from the hands of the FCC, a rulemaking body that makes legally binding regulations outside of the bounds of legislative oversight.
You blame me for supporting an industry that hurts people, but I’d argue that the drug war hurts people far more than the drugs themselves. I would rather see a couple suburban teenagers get heart attacks than know that my country is flying blackhawk helicopters and spraying defoliants on third world farmers whose only alternative employment is to join terrorist organizations. We amoral sociopaths have it so much easier than you do, we don’t have to worry as much about our hypocrisy coming back to haunt us. Besides most of the drugs that are scheduled you’ve never even heard of. I can make a phone call and get hallucinogenics you had no idea existed delivered to my home right now if I so chose, yet you are tacitly supporting that they be illegal. I have experience with them, and feel that they have vastly improved my life. You’ve never heard of them, and you maintain that they should be illegal. Yet somehow I am the selfish amoral sociopath.
My post wasn’t about what the government should or shouldn’t do. It was about a simple wish that ignorant bigots would stop voting. I know my wish isn’t going to come true, but hopefully you won’t cling blindly to your opinion, and you’ll actually start giving it some thought, as you clearly don’t know a fucking thing about drugs or their effects. Do you even know that one of the biggest cases regarding drugs that has been going through the churches was whether or not Ayahuasca, an ancient hallucinogenic sacrament could be used in the religious ceremonies of a church called Uniao de Vegetal.
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/ayahuasca_index.htm
I’m so glad you are so much more caring than a selfish egomaniac like me who believes that people should be free to imbibe what they wish to. You clearly are more caring about other people in your support of locking people up for things that barely affect you.
I’m not against governing the behavior of idiots in public, but the laws we have in place are just patently ridiculous. Drug law should be about managing inebriated idiots, and they shouldn’t completely shatter the lives of individuals and communities.
Erek
Heh, I should’ve previewed. That was “Going through the courts” regarding Uniao de Vegetal and Ayahuasca.
I hope you know how ignorant this statement makes you sound. In no way is a democracy the same as an anarchy . But don’t let your ignorance stop you.
Well that’s not true. Cocaine , as an example, can be purchased for use in scientific studies. If you could convince the FDA and DEA of the possible medical uses of that drug, you could do clinical trials to show it’s use. But don’t let your ignorance stop you.
“the Federal Communications Commission has slapped 20 CBS-owned broadcasting stations with $27,500 fines each, for a grand total of $550,000”
http://www.dailyorange.com/media/paper522/news/2004/09/08/Opinion/Fines.Justified.For.Nipple.Incident-712548.shtml
http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/09/22/fine-handed-down-for-janets-nipple/
Hmmm, so that was CBS that was fined, but not Janet. But hey, don’t let your ignorance stop you.
Hey, don’t let your ignorance hit you on the ass on the way out. First you missed the point of a “JOKE” about democracy and anarchy especially considering we live in a REPUBLIC dumbass, and this is a PIT THREAD.
Secondly, so I made a mistake about the FCC, doesn’t make it less ridiculous. But hey, why should that keep you from taking the opportunity to feel smug and superior.
I love how people find tiny little nitpicks and try to paint the whole argument because of course we’re not posting on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD NO! We’re writing our Doctoral dissertations here!
Erek
As for Cocaine, I am glad you pointed that out for me. Here’s a link www.maps.org this organization exists in order to lobby for the study of psychedelics. I wonder why an organization like this would exist because cocaine is legal to study! But of course I was wrong about a couple things that means my point has no merit whatsoever right?
Erek
We live in a democratic republic, which is a form of a democracy . Sorry, I missed the joke. I guess it wasn’t that good.
Well, I don’t have time to check everything you write. Apparently you don’t either. That’s sad, we really can’t trust anything you write.
You need to research this more, you don’t know what you are talking about. The United States Pharmacopeia makes a cocaine standard for scientific studies. Cocaine is not ‘illegal’. No chemical substance is ‘illegal’. It is however a controlled substance, a schedule II controlled substance. This means that you need a license from the DEA to possess and use these substances. To conduct clinical trials for human use, one needs FDA permission. Thus in order to propose a study of cocaine(or whatever) on humans, you need to get permission from both these bodies.
There is no law that forbids studies involving these substances. Cocaine is frequently run through various experiments around the country, though none that I’m aware of on humans. I’ve worked with controlled substances in various studies, including morphine, a schedule II like cocaine. I don’t know where you’ve been getting your information, but I’d suggest you use different sources from now on.
I would also add to the list people who believe the purpose of the law is to prevent any activity that might offend them.