This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Discussion no.1 dudtube: he ends his speech saying that consuming drugs makes people passive for dictatorships (which is an absurd fallacy), therefore he advocates an authoritarian legislation to prevent that. makes PERFECT sense! me: You are confusing dictatorship, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. He advocates for a more or less authoritative state against welfarist totalitarianism. Marx once said something about opium of the masses - now we have a State that serves the rich and in satisfying the masses with cannabis shuts their mouths. I think personally that one who smokes deserves to be left to suffer consequences when they show. If ppl want to smoke, they should go live in the jungle, in society we help each other. dudtube: I'm not confusing anything. His argument is anti-dictatorship (which is an authoritarian system) and his solution is authoritarian. doesn't make sense at all. you cannot even demonstrate what you're saying. show me evidence that people that smoke cannabis are not politicaly aware. I do smoke and I'm engaged. your last sentence doesn't make any sense. smoking cannabis doesn't interfere in helping others. if you think it does, you'll have to demonstrate it cientifically as well. me: As to helping - I said that ppl who smoke deserve to be denied access to healthcare, since they damage it themselves. dudtube: ps: as a libertarian, I question the very existence of a big public healthcare system, but your argument specifically discriminates cannabis/drugs users, which is totally arbitrary, since there are inumerous other products and life-style aspects that are unhealthy. me: Ok, sorry for having mistaken you for something else. As a continental conservative I think that we should protect the collective's traditional moral beliefs against the caprice of individuals. Cannabis is a threat to the family, the family is the key to the existence of society (it moderates b/w big society and single individual) and its supreme moral centre, therefore cannabis should be illegal. I mean, whether one gets healthcare or not, one's family WILL help them because it loves them.
Discussion no.2 [ongoing]
jwats100: Why is it a threat to families? You really can't understand that prohibition is worse? Someone who smokes weed can go to jail, ruining their path in life in the process. Explain to me what would happen to the responsible cannabis user, who doesn't go to jail, that justifies prohibition. me: because the family will have to take care of the person who damaged their health. even responsible users on the long term, especially when they get old, are damaged by it. (don't tell me that young ppl are responsible since they get drunk so often, and it is absurd to say that it is possible for them to be responsible in all countries.) jwats100: I do think there should be an age minimum. (although I currently would be under that age, My unbiased opinion says there should be one.) Without getting into how the damages of cannabis use is relatively small, I think that if someone has a drug problem, their families should take care of them. We will always have drug problems; but it should be a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. Jail does not fix their drug problem or health problems. me: Well an age minimum is something that hardly works - just like with alcohol, kids have it bought for them anyway. But the issue is that a person who has health issues because of having taken pleasure in smoking, knowing that it may cause damage, that person is selfish... jwats100: But a minimum age works better. If I want weed, its one text away at any time. But alcohol? Sure I could raid my parents stuff, but I could never take too much, or enough to get really drunk for that matter. They would notice. Other than that, I would have to be at a friends house. Again, it really isn't that damaging, but in the circumstances that it is, I agree that person is selfish if they continue to smoke. So put them in the cage? You do realize medieval times have ended right? me: You can always get it from your friends who are 18 or above. I am not as decided about alcohol prohibition as about weed, as weed is more easily abused. As to the Middle ages - people do crime and are nuisance to society and/or their family, but not put them in jail? You do realize modern times are far from ideal, even far from good, compared to Middle ages, where there was less crime, ppl weren't manipulated by silly ads, and no need of "liberation" from fictional things. jwats100: is that I want to put criminals, including those on booze and weed in jail, and keep as many law abiding citizens, including those who drink and smoke weed out of jail. You want to put criminals in jail as well as law abiding, pot smoking citizens, and keep everyone else out. If I break no law, work, pay taxes, and smoke weed when I deem it appropriate. Why should I go to jail, knowing all the implications that jail has? Even if it harms my health. if it did, its a health issue. not criminal. me: Being law abiding AND pot smoking is incompatible. Smoking pot is law-breaking, por-smokers are criminals. Now, laws are not always moral and sometimes even violate natural law. But here it is not the case. The West became such a great civilization since Roman times because of its moral virtue. Pot damages you and someone else'll have to take care of you one day. Doing that is immoral and should be punished. You can drink when it's appropriate, but being high or (really) drunk is immoral.
jwats100: I know they are criminals now because that the law, but I'm saying make it so its not against the law therefore allowing them to smoke without any stigma attached. If you think that being drunk (but not really drunk) is at times OK then you really don't have a problem with people being high, you just don't have a clear understanding of its effects on health. Sort of drunk is way worse than being REALLY high on your health. What do you think it does that would require future healthcare aid? me: I was stupid to put the word "really". I think it's morally OK to drink. In the West, alcohol was always legal, and a part of tradition. But it isn't the case with cannabis. And cannabis, a part from making people behaving like when drunk, causes brain damage. jwats100: Do you think that alcohol does not cause people to get hurt, killed, or get diseases. If you think it doesn't then you live under a rock. If you think it does; that people have to care for loved ones who did this damage to themselves drinking and you think that is morally OK then go look up the word hypocrite me: Alcohol does damage, but it is already legal and it's unrealistic to think of a prohibition. Nevertheless it is immoral to get drunk, and the public behavior it causes should be punished. I personally think not drinking alcohol is good, but it is so deeply rooted in European tradition that only individuals decide. But the Babylon we have today should make us think about putting limits to it. Peter about it: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/03/a-serious-answer-to-a-sillyargument.html
II. ON DEATH PENALTY: In the comment section of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppFgc-Hobw0
Me, before discussion: Playing moderate, I still conclude that the anti-DP argue badly. DP was abolished for bad reasons - headonism. The state must protect the community against malicious individuals who do not do their duty not to murder. DP has always worked, non-DP not yet. Retributive justice, order and traditional values should be revived before we decide if DP can be deserved. You do X, you deserve Y, like in stores. In Christianity, the thief next to Christ who repented did it thanks to his DP. But Pharisees were sick, when they took perverse pleasure in DP.
- AscendingParadigm: This Pro Death Penalty advocate believes 600 year old Noah rounded up breeding pairs of all the millions of species on earth, stored them on a single boat, then repopulated the planet with them after a global flood. Imagine this guy is a juror who wrongfully convicts you for a crime you didn't do, in a case that had zero physical evidence inditing you. Imagine having your life taken because a bunch of imbeciles like him created barbaric policies based on demonstrably false primitive fables.
-Me: I don't believe in biblical literalism, dear Mr. Maher. I simply think things don't work very well without DP. I actually think that the monarch should be able to show mercy, but I simply don't know how we should have a justice system except by retributive justice. Listen to yourself: "Imagine this guy is a juror who wrongfully convicts you for a crime you didn't do, in a case that had zero physical evidence inditing you." - that's why there is a jury, with many persons. "Imagine having your life taken because a bunch of imbeciles like him created barbaric policies based on demonstrably false primitive fables." Imagine being imprisoned because a bunch of imbeciles like him created barbaric policies based on ... primitive fables - and those policies are the only ones who have showed themselves workable in putting order in society. And the "false primitive fables" prohibit meats that modern man finds uneatable, but pagans didn't. It's very practical nowadays.
- AscendingParadigm: Would you sacrifice your life, or your mother's life, for the sake of keeping the death penalty? Or are you referencing strangers when you advocate executions of innocent people?
- AscendingParadigm: Deuteronomy 14:21 Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. Practical cooking advice? Timeless, divine wisdom? No, primitive superstition. You never answered my questions. Would you sacrifice your life, or your mother's life, for the sake of keeping the death penalty? Or are you referencing strangers when you advocate executions of innocent people?
- AscendingParadigm: [quoting me: “And it is not immoral to punish by death innocent ppl. It is better to sacrifice the exceptions for the major cases, otherwise principles cannot exist.”] Would you preach that if you or your loved ones were sitting on death row for crimes you didn't do?
- Me: If I murdered someone, the right moral thing I ought to do is to surrender to the police and be hanged. The same thing to a relative of mine. I will pray for the person's soul, and ask ppl pray for me if I am sentenced. The DP was removed because of hedonism - due to the West's abandonment of Christianity. I think death isn't the worst thing that can happen to an individual, and most societies before the 20th thought like me. While I know I don't live in one, I advocate for a Christian society.