Just what did you think you were getting when you went to see this film?
I, for one, was looking for something along the lines of Clerks, MallRats, Chasing Amy or Dogma. I felt Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back fell terribly, terribly short on that expectation.
Also, instead of a federal spread of culpability, its would have to be limited to states with documentable acts of overt discrmination. Its not the taxpayers at large that would have to pay a financial judgement, its the taxpayers of a municipality across the south that would have to pay.
Again, you are directing blame at people who did not actually commit the crimes, but the descendants of those people. You are trying to pin a crime on people who weren't responsible for it. If you are to be fair about it, you might as well make EVERYONE pay EQUALLY.
Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group.
That statement is ridiculous and untrue. Maybe you should read it again. That line of reasoning could be used to support genocide.
I fail to see where it supports genocide.
I admit, it's a quite a stretch, but I could see turning it into:
"It's not discrimination (against Jews) if it redresses previous (perceived) wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group (genocide)."
I know. Semantics. No need to point out the flaws in my thinking. I probably should have kept that comment to myself, and I just wanted to offer an explanation for my statement (which in hindsight, is hyperbolic).
I think its preferable that the federal gov't has spread the "pain" in the manner it did, and preserved some form of meritocratic system of distribution, rather than point a finger at a southern gov't, and proceed to redistribute cash.
And here is where we differ. I find it reasonable to spread the pain, but not in a manner that promotes discrimination, which is inherently unjust.
You may sit smug now, thinking that you as an individual are not being unduly burdened by affirmative action, but you might learn otherwise when loved ones are killed and property destroyed by a disenfranchised class of individuals in armed revolt (whom I believe currently make up 40% of the U.S. military).
I don't believe I'm following you here. The first half of that statement would seem to suggest I am somehow unduly burdened by affirmative action. And I would request a source to back up your claim of such a high rate of disenfranchisement in the military. I believe your reality of how military folks currently feel has been greatly distorted by the media.
But its not surprising to see that individuals like you are so concerned about "justice" and "rule of law", but think it acceptable to ignore injustice inflicted upon a group of people by "rule of law".
To say that I am "so concerned" with "rule of law" illustrates that you have not been paying attention to what I've been saying. I very clearly pointed out, more than once, that I believe law can very well run counter to justice and is without any real merit on its own. I thought I made my contempt for blindly following the law quite clear.
As for finding it acceptable to "ignore injustice inflicted upon a group of people", it is YOU who is ignoring injustice. Discrimination is unjust by any means and you are trying to justify it. And just what statement in this thread did I make to make it sound like I think it acceptable to "ignore injustice inflicted upon a group of people"?
But you live in the country whose gov't conducted racist policy. If you say the gov't is to be charged, you're still liable for it, as a taxpayer.
Excellent. That's what I've been trying to say. If anyone is responsible, it should be the taxpayers at large and not a specific racial group.
So basically, you have no problem with enforcing the law, even it it could cause another civil war in this country.
You think restitution would lead to civil war? I beg to differ.
Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group.
That statement is ridiculous and untrue. Maybe you should read it again. That line of reasoning could be used to support genocide.
So basically, you're against discrimination when it impacts your racial group, specifically your least intellectually qualified individuals.
Uh, no. I'm against ALL discrimination. Skin color and race should be completely transparent. Affirmative action violates this ideal.
And you don't care if the United States can function after such legal judgements are rendered. Which makes you the ultimate selfish individual.
First of all, I don't see such a method as being a fatal blow to the U.S. economic system as you do. Second, I fail to see how it is selfish if I stand to gain nothing.
Your father has responsibility in the institutional discrimination perpetrated by his gov't, whether by action or inaction.
So? I am not responsible for my father's actions.
Are you suggesting gov't should individually identify survivors of institutionalized racism prior to 1960, set a cash award, and then make all taxpayers responsible for funding it?
I'm suggesting that if people want restitution, they need to go to the source. If someone robs you, you need to go after that someone, not his family or his race.
I don't really shed tears if an informal quota existed which kept higher scoring asians from getting a spot at UCB than a lower scoring white or black guy.
I know this sentence is out of context, but you're condoning discrimination here.
You do not propose any means to redress gov't induced discrimination against surviving victims. Please demonstrate your sense of fairness, and present how you think the issue should be redressed.
I say the burden should fall on everyone, instead of instituting discrimination against any given race. Your example of taxpayers footing the bill on a case by case basis would at least be a solution that doesn't perpetuate injustice as a method of remedying previous injustice.
So when white people steal from black people, white people are theives. But when the victim tries to extract restitution for that theft, they are theives. Ah, that "white" logic, its so confusing to me.
*I* am a white person. *I* did not steal from black people. *I* am not a thief. Therefore, if they try to extract restitution from me, then yes, they are theives! It's not "white" logic. It's just plain logic. I don't owe black people any more than I owe anyone else.
Lesse. Black people your age, who could not benefit from an inheritance of the same monetary value as a white person, profitted from slavery because they still start out economically poorer than the average white person
I did not say "the average white person". I said: have profited just about as much as *I* have. I. Me. If anyone starts out economically poorer than me, they still have the same opportunities *I* did. They have access to public schools and you can go on from there to get the same place I have.
I'm not saying that black people aren't statistically disadvantaged to white people. I'm just saying two things:
1. Regardless of any disadvantage, people of all races are currently able to overcome. It is sooo not hard to get a decent job and have a fine, stable, enjoyable life in this country. Maybe you need to visit somewhere else so you can see REAL poverty, because I don't see it here. I don't see people living in mud huts, shitting pretty close to where they live, starving and burning fires as the only source of heat. Here in America, I see people that have royally fucked up their lives by getting into drugs and credit card debt and all kinds of stupidity that *they bring on themselves*. I've seen plenty of people with my same exact background fuck up their lives (military brats I grew up with that are now fucked). There is a lot of opportunity in this country. People of all races throw these opportunities away.
2. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. This is the point that is being ignored here. Discriminating against me or anyone else based solely on their race/skin color is simply unjust! End of story. If some white guy down the street punches some black guy, that does not justify that black guy taking it out on me.
And just a quick question: what about asian folks? Do they have a part in this? Are they responsible for any of this? When I was graduating from high school, it was well known that one of the local universities were applying affirmative action, making it more difficult for asians to get into engineering because there were "too many". Do you think this is fair?
You didn't add to it, but your name is on there. You were raised using wealth stolen from black folks. Even after you were 18, you went to colleges that were built using this wealth, you worked for corporations built using this stolen wealth as well.
My childhood was subsized by taxpayers at large (black & white). My dad was in the Army and I went to schools on base. After that, I joined the Air Force and continued to survive on taxpayer money. I've never gone to college aside from a couple community college courses.
The prices you pay for land, goods and infrastructure have all been subsidized by theft from black Americans.
Everybody has the same access to said land, goods and infrastructure, black or white.
you aren't as blameless as you'd like to believe.
I still don't understand how the blame falls on ME. I didn't do anything! I am no more responsible for the actions of slave owners than I am the actions of Hitler and Stalin. I have no connection to these people!
any definition in use by the courts, recognizes that regardless of your knowledge, you are responsible for recieving stolen goods, caveat emptor. In fact, this principle extends back to common law and cannon law, so I'd say the morality here is pretty well established.
Laws shmaws. See slavery, or the article topic. The legal stance of a topic, in and of itself, has little relevance on whether it is moral or just.
Unless you've lived outside the US since the age of 18, you aren't as blameless as you'd like to believe. I agree that you did not add to the bill. Neither did I, but I don't deny that I've (unwittingly, unknowingly) profited from stolen goods.
I lived half my childhood in Germany and when I joined the service at age 18, I went to Iceland and then England, having only recently returned (about 2 years ago), not that it has a whole lot to do with this argument. I just wanted to rebuke your assumptions of me being well-to-do, college educated and always having lived in the U.S.:)
As for profiting from stolen goods, I will concede that point only to offer that everyone gets the same benefit from said stolen goods. That is to say, blacks have equal access to reaping the benefits of any stolen goods and are just as guilty of using those stolen goods!
This is not some caste based feudal society. Just about everyone has the same opportunities I've had in my life: access to public education and the opportunity to enlist in the armed forces (assuming no physical handicap).
But that does not release us from our responsibility when we have also profited from it.
My point overall is, mileage my vary slightly, but blacks my age have profited just about as much as *I* have from the slavery instituted over a century and half ago.
Well on the scale of morally right, I don't think you want to try and tally white America's bill from black America.
I didn't add to that "bill", so I shouldn't have to pay it! Why should I be responsible for the actions of people that died before I was even born!?
Your arguments do not address individual acts of discrimination which are inherently wrong. Justice is supposed to be blind, don't you see? People should be evaluated for who they are. Don't you have any real concept of justice?
To do otherwise would be a break from precedent.
The slavery you are trying to make reperations for was at one time both lawful and precedented. Legality is in no way a moral justification for anything.
Does taking a quote out of context necessarily diminish any greater meaning that someone might gain from it?
Using this quitessential Franklin quote to pretend that anarchy is the best possible state demonstrates nothing more than a profound misunderstanding of history.
Anarchy? Taking things a bit far, no?
I'm curious, what roles do you belive it appropriate for a government to fill?
In regard to the original post, I believe it appropriate for the government to provide a certain level of safety. Clean drinking water? Sure. Free internet? Well... I'd like free internet as much as any/.er, but it's simply not a necessity item.
You see fit for everyone to sacrifice for the greater good, and this is a noble notion in one vein. But when you look at it from another standpoint, you are invariably advocating that people be forced to sacrifice liberty through taxation.
And why must the government be the foundation for all things infrastructure? Why can't internet access be handled by capitalism (not corporatism, mind you, which is the current problem).
I have also had bad luck with optical drives. They seem to last 6-8 years before dying and I wouldn't be surprised if this was due to my buying the cheapest hardware possible.
And this makes me wonder... is there a site out there anywhere that tracks component lifetimes and RMA rates? Anyone know of a consumer reporting agency that deals with lifetimes and durability (instead of the typical advocacy based on features/power)?
I assume that when you say you're against "all drug use, including marijuana" you're also against alcohol and tobacco
That assumption is correct.
I personally believe these things fall into what I call "negative industry". I'm sure there's a proper term for it, but that's what I call it.
Let's take tobacco use. Think of all the work and effort that goes into the production, marketing, lobbying, sales, etc. Now take into account the medical aspect and healthcare costs. Weigh these against the benefits of tobacco use (recreational aspect). I would imagine most people would agree that the cost/benefit ratio would land tobacco use into the territory of negative industry.
So now... we get to alcohol and marijuana use. Does it qualify? I will not claim it to be factually so, but my personal belief is yes.
OTOH, I believe in personal freedom and it's sad to see those personal freedoms eroded. I would hesitate to regulate and control substances on those grounds. Perhaps if there were an entirely different way to dissuade drug use other than banning it outright?
Even the WTO thinks United States marijuana laws are bullshit.
Appeal to authority? Or are there some particular arguments from the article you might peresent yourself?
Really, though, I am thinking towards drugs that significantly alter the user's behavior.
Would you say that there is no significant change to your behavior when you smoke weed?
I'm simplying saying that your terms are completely arbitrary, as are the laws that apply to these drugs. This is a rather dangerous slippery slope, and the end result is that your classifications are based more on personal prejudice than chemistry.
I am no expert on behavioral science by any means and am not familiar with the best way to quantify behavior. So yes, the terms are arbitrary and I'm generally talking out of my ass when I try to argue the point. This is why I wanted someone else to debate it:)
I've found various studies that I believe to be credible, but I find it difficult to use those in a conversational debate. What I was looking for is not so much facts and data, so much so, as compelling arguments based in fact.
realize that the position is one that isn't defensible and either keep it to yourself
You are correct, sir. I should have kept my position out of the equation when I initially posted.
drop the inane comparisons to violent crime
I was simply trying to express that just because something hasn't destroyed western civilization, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
One could insert any number of problems into ___ hasn't destroyed western Civilization yet. I just plucked domestic abuse out of thin air. I was not trying to relate domestic abuse to drug use.
If you can't do that you can always tell people that you have a religous belief on the subject and go from there
but if you can't come up with a good reason to be against something, maybe you should stop and realize that you've just got some sort of irrational emotional bias.
To clarify, the problem is, the arguments I use to support my position on the matter are generalizations drawn from personal experience. These arguments are subjective and are attacked as such.
weed is good. well, better than beer, anyway, and that hasn't destroyed western civilization yet.
Domestic abuse "hasn't destroyed western civilization yet", either.
Whoever modded this offtopic should not be allowed to moderate. The question was a direct question about the comment in the GP's post.
I'd actually like to hear a good answer to the parent post. I'm against all drug use, including marijuana, but I can never seem to come up with a decent logical discourse to support my position against marijuana use. I'd be interested to see what/.ers come up with.
Don't be so sure. I think it's quite disappointing (am watching third episode now).
The main character doesn't make any sense... stressing over little stuff, not running over to his GF's place for some action. I don't get it.
And don't get me started on the computing aspect of this. The guy needs seriously needs to run IM2. And how can he tolerate having that Fisher Price desktop all the time?
Really though, the lack of running out for booty call is just confusing to me. Sex may not be the most important thing in the world, but come on...
Part of being a member of society is giving help to those who need it.
Why is that? Why can't people take care of themselves? Why *must* my hard work go to support others against my will?
Of course, the majority of the population is too self consumed to do it willingly.
People center on greed and selfishness so much, but nobody seems to realize that people work hard for their money, so, of course they want to spend it on themselves. And to make matters worse, you want to give my money to the needy. Well, I live in a ghetto neighborhood chocked full of *needy* folks and you know what? A majority of the needy are shitty people that I don't *want* to help. It enfuriates me to have to support their lazy, consumerist, bullshit ways.
All you liberals out there, listen up. There are a shit ton of people who vote Republican, not because they like GW (I fucking hate that guy), because they are religious right (I'm atheist), or because they like any of the bullshit associated with the Republican party, but because we soooo hate giving money to all the peices of shit out there. We hate giving our money to asshats and screw ups. We hate funding Joe Moron's lifestyle and his family's lifestyle, perpetuating his bullshit ways and dilution of the gene pool. Sound hostile and extreme? You're damn right. I'm sick of these people.
You want to help the needy. Fine. But quit expecting others to go along with your forced redistribution of wealth. I don't work hard and stay out of trouble just so more money ends up in the hands of some meth head down the street.
How about just benchmarks without the pessimistic commentary? Perhaps I'm reading a little much into "Uncertain Future for AMD", but it doesn't sound pleasant to me.
But, then again, maybe I should see if Tom's Hardware has changed its tune as of late and give it another chance.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole philanthropic aspect of the GPL is bunk IMO.
Yeah, cause we all know that people who use the GPL are greedy misanthropes.
If you use the GPL, you're coding with Hitler!
I never really liked Connections, but I second that sentiment about "The Day the Universe Changed" having rocked. It's one of my favorites.
You should be able to get the whole series on eDonkey. Check it out!
Just what did you think you were getting when you went to see this film?
I, for one, was looking for something along the lines of Clerks, MallRats, Chasing Amy or Dogma. I felt Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back fell terribly, terribly short on that expectation.
"We landed on the moon!"
Sadly enough, that's exactly how I picture some slashdot editor all excited over "Nuclear Fusion".
That's a flawed analogy.
I don't not think it isn't not unacceptable.
Again, you are directing blame at people who did not actually commit the crimes, but the descendants of those people. You are trying to pin a crime on people who weren't responsible for it. If you are to be fair about it, you might as well make EVERYONE pay EQUALLY.
I admit, it's a quite a stretch, but I could see turning it into:
"It's not discrimination (against Jews) if it redresses previous (perceived) wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group (genocide)."
I know. Semantics. No need to point out the flaws in my thinking. I probably should have kept that comment to myself, and I just wanted to offer an explanation for my statement (which in hindsight, is hyperbolic).
And here is where we differ. I find it reasonable to spread the pain, but not in a manner that promotes discrimination, which is inherently unjust.
I don't believe I'm following you here. The first half of that statement would seem to suggest I am somehow unduly burdened by affirmative action. And I would request a source to back up your claim of such a high rate of disenfranchisement in the military. I believe your reality of how military folks currently feel has been greatly distorted by the media.
To say that I am "so concerned" with "rule of law" illustrates that you have not been paying attention to what I've been saying. I very clearly pointed out, more than once, that I believe law can very well run counter to justice and is without any real merit on its own. I thought I made my contempt for blindly following the law quite clear.
As for finding it acceptable to "ignore injustice inflicted upon a group of people", it is YOU who is ignoring injustice. Discrimination is unjust by any means and you are trying to justify it. And just what statement in this thread did I make to make it sound like I think it acceptable to "ignore injustice inflicted upon a group of people"?
But you live in the country whose gov't conducted racist policy. If you say the gov't is to be charged, you're still liable for it, as a taxpayer.
Excellent. That's what I've been trying to say. If anyone is responsible, it should be the taxpayers at large and not a specific racial group.
So basically, you have no problem with enforcing the law, even it it could cause another civil war in this country.
You think restitution would lead to civil war? I beg to differ.
Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group.
That statement is ridiculous and untrue. Maybe you should read it again. That line of reasoning could be used to support genocide.
So basically, you're against discrimination when it impacts your racial group, specifically your least intellectually qualified individuals.
Uh, no. I'm against ALL discrimination. Skin color and race should be completely transparent. Affirmative action violates this ideal.
And you don't care if the United States can function after such legal judgements are rendered. Which makes you the ultimate selfish individual.
First of all, I don't see such a method as being a fatal blow to the U.S. economic system as you do. Second, I fail to see how it is selfish if I stand to gain nothing.
Your father has responsibility in the institutional discrimination perpetrated by his gov't, whether by action or inaction.
So? I am not responsible for my father's actions.
Are you suggesting gov't should individually identify survivors of institutionalized racism prior to 1960, set a cash award, and then make all taxpayers responsible for funding it?
I'm suggesting that if people want restitution, they need to go to the source. If someone robs you, you need to go after that someone, not his family or his race.
I don't really shed tears if an informal quota existed which kept higher scoring asians from getting a spot at UCB than a lower scoring white or black guy.
I know this sentence is out of context, but you're condoning discrimination here.
You do not propose any means to redress gov't induced discrimination against surviving victims. Please demonstrate your sense of fairness, and present how you think the issue should be redressed.
I say the burden should fall on everyone, instead of instituting discrimination against any given race. Your example of taxpayers footing the bill on a case by case basis would at least be a solution that doesn't perpetuate injustice as a method of remedying previous injustice.
So when white people steal from black people, white people are theives. But when the victim tries to extract restitution for that theft, they are theives. Ah, that "white" logic, its so confusing to me.
*I* am a white person. *I* did not steal from black people. *I* am not a thief. Therefore, if they try to extract restitution from me, then yes, they are theives! It's not "white" logic. It's just plain logic. I don't owe black people any more than I owe anyone else.
Lesse. Black people your age, who could not benefit from an inheritance of the same monetary value as a white person, profitted from slavery because they still start out economically poorer than the average white person
I did not say "the average white person". I said: have profited just about as much as *I* have. I. Me. If anyone starts out economically poorer than me, they still have the same opportunities *I* did. They have access to public schools and you can go on from there to get the same place I have.
I'm not saying that black people aren't statistically disadvantaged to white people. I'm just saying two things:
1. Regardless of any disadvantage, people of all races are currently able to overcome. It is sooo not hard to get a decent job and have a fine, stable, enjoyable life in this country. Maybe you need to visit somewhere else so you can see REAL poverty, because I don't see it here. I don't see people living in mud huts, shitting pretty close to where they live, starving and burning fires as the only source of heat. Here in America, I see people that have royally fucked up their lives by getting into drugs and credit card debt and all kinds of stupidity that *they bring on themselves*. I've seen plenty of people with my same exact background fuck up their lives (military brats I grew up with that are now fucked). There is a lot of opportunity in this country. People of all races throw these opportunities away.
2. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. This is the point that is being ignored here. Discriminating against me or anyone else based solely on their race/skin color is simply unjust! End of story. If some white guy down the street punches some black guy, that does not justify that black guy taking it out on me.
And just a quick question: what about asian folks? Do they have a part in this? Are they responsible for any of this? When I was graduating from high school, it was well known that one of the local universities were applying affirmative action, making it more difficult for asians to get into engineering because there were "too many". Do you think this is fair?
You didn't add to it, but your name is on there. You were raised using wealth stolen from black folks. Even after you were 18, you went to colleges that were built using this wealth, you worked for corporations built using this stolen wealth as well.
:)
My childhood was subsized by taxpayers at large (black & white). My dad was in the Army and I went to schools on base. After that, I joined the Air Force and continued to survive on taxpayer money. I've never gone to college aside from a couple community college courses.
The prices you pay for land, goods and infrastructure have all been subsidized by theft from black Americans.
Everybody has the same access to said land, goods and infrastructure, black or white.
you aren't as blameless as you'd like to believe.
I still don't understand how the blame falls on ME. I didn't do anything! I am no more responsible for the actions of slave owners than I am the actions of Hitler and Stalin. I have no connection to these people!
any definition in use by the courts, recognizes that regardless of your knowledge, you are responsible for recieving stolen goods, caveat emptor. In fact, this principle extends back to common law and cannon law, so I'd say the morality here is pretty well established.
Laws shmaws. See slavery, or the article topic. The legal stance of a topic, in and of itself, has little relevance on whether it is moral or just.
Unless you've lived outside the US since the age of 18, you aren't as blameless as you'd like to believe. I agree that you did not add to the bill. Neither did I, but I don't deny that I've (unwittingly, unknowingly) profited from stolen goods.
I lived half my childhood in Germany and when I joined the service at age 18, I went to Iceland and then England, having only recently returned (about 2 years ago), not that it has a whole lot to do with this argument. I just wanted to rebuke your assumptions of me being well-to-do, college educated and always having lived in the U.S.
As for profiting from stolen goods, I will concede that point only to offer that everyone gets the same benefit from said stolen goods. That is to say, blacks have equal access to reaping the benefits of any stolen goods and are just as guilty of using those stolen goods!
This is not some caste based feudal society. Just about everyone has the same opportunities I've had in my life: access to public education and the opportunity to enlist in the armed forces (assuming no physical handicap).
But that does not release us from our responsibility when we have also profited from it.
My point overall is, mileage my vary slightly, but blacks my age have profited just about as much as *I* have from the slavery instituted over a century and half ago.
Heck, lets go even further: women are chattel. Sound even better?
:P
Well, when you put it that way...
Well on the scale of morally right, I don't think you want to try and tally white America's bill from black America.
I didn't add to that "bill", so I shouldn't have to pay it! Why should I be responsible for the actions of people that died before I was even born!?
Your arguments do not address individual acts of discrimination which are inherently wrong. Justice is supposed to be blind, don't you see? People should be evaluated for who they are. Don't you have any real concept of justice?
To do otherwise would be a break from precedent.
The slavery you are trying to make reperations for was at one time both lawful and precedented. Legality is in no way a moral justification for anything.
Way to take things out of context.
/.er, but it's simply not a necessity item.
Does taking a quote out of context necessarily diminish any greater meaning that someone might gain from it?
Using this quitessential Franklin quote to pretend that anarchy is the best possible state demonstrates nothing more than a profound misunderstanding of history.
Anarchy? Taking things a bit far, no?
I'm curious, what roles do you belive it appropriate for a government to fill?
In regard to the original post, I believe it appropriate for the government to provide a certain level of safety. Clean drinking water? Sure. Free internet? Well... I'd like free internet as much as any
You see fit for everyone to sacrifice for the greater good, and this is a noble notion in one vein. But when you look at it from another standpoint, you are invariably advocating that people be forced to sacrifice liberty through taxation.
And why must the government be the foundation for all things infrastructure? Why can't internet access be handled by capitalism (not corporatism, mind you, which is the current problem).
I have also had bad luck with optical drives. They seem to last 6-8 years before dying and I wouldn't be surprised if this was due to my buying the cheapest hardware possible.
And this makes me wonder... is there a site out there anywhere that tracks component lifetimes and RMA rates? Anyone know of a consumer reporting agency that deals with lifetimes and durability (instead of the typical advocacy based on features/power)?
I've found subjective claims on hardware, for instance, but it would be nice to see hard data.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
I assume that when you say you're against "all drug use, including marijuana" you're also against alcohol and tobacco
That assumption is correct.
I personally believe these things fall into what I call "negative industry". I'm sure there's a proper term for it, but that's what I call it.
Let's take tobacco use. Think of all the work and effort that goes into the production, marketing, lobbying, sales, etc. Now take into account the medical aspect and healthcare costs. Weigh these against the benefits of tobacco use (recreational aspect). I would imagine most people would agree that the cost/benefit ratio would land tobacco use into the territory of negative industry.
So now... we get to alcohol and marijuana use. Does it qualify? I will not claim it to be factually so, but my personal belief is yes.
OTOH, I believe in personal freedom and it's sad to see those personal freedoms eroded. I would hesitate to regulate and control substances on those grounds. Perhaps if there were an entirely different way to dissuade drug use other than banning it outright?
Even the WTO thinks United States marijuana laws are bullshit.
Appeal to authority? Or are there some particular arguments from the article you might peresent yourself?
I'm still the same person and I'm still rational.
:)
But notice what I originally wrote:
Really, though, I am thinking towards drugs that significantly alter the user's behavior.
Would you say that there is no significant change to your behavior when you smoke weed?
I'm simplying saying that your terms are completely arbitrary, as are the laws that apply to these drugs. This is a rather dangerous slippery slope, and the end result is that your classifications are based more on personal prejudice than chemistry.
I am no expert on behavioral science by any means and am not familiar with the best way to quantify behavior. So yes, the terms are arbitrary and I'm generally talking out of my ass when I try to argue the point. This is why I wanted someone else to debate it
If you have a hard time finding credible data
I've found various studies that I believe to be credible, but I find it difficult to use those in a conversational debate. What I was looking for is not so much facts and data, so much so, as compelling arguments based in fact.
realize that the position is one that isn't defensible and either keep it to yourself
You are correct, sir. I should have kept my position out of the equation when I initially posted.
drop the inane comparisons to violent crime
I was simply trying to express that just because something hasn't destroyed western civilization, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
One could insert any number of problems into ___ hasn't destroyed western Civilization yet. I just plucked domestic abuse out of thin air. I was not trying to relate domestic abuse to drug use.
If you can't do that you can always tell people that you have a religous belief on the subject and go from there
I'm an atheist. That won't work.
Oh yeah, that's because you meant "all illicit (according to US law)" drug use, not "all" drug use.
Yes. People often refer to illicit drugs as simply "drugs".
Really, though, I am thinking towards drugs that significantly alter the user's behavior.
And, no, I don't drink. And, yes, I am implying alcoholic beverages (before you go on about the fact that I do drink various liquids).
but if you can't come up with a good reason to be against something, maybe you should stop and realize that you've just got some sort of irrational emotional bias.
To clarify, the problem is, the arguments I use to support my position on the matter are generalizations drawn from personal experience. These arguments are subjective and are attacked as such.
weed is good. well, better than beer, anyway, and that hasn't destroyed western civilization yet.
Domestic abuse "hasn't destroyed western civilization yet", either.
Re:Worst. Interview. Ever. (Score:-1, Offtopic)
/.ers come up with.
Whoever modded this offtopic should not be allowed to moderate. The question was a direct question about the comment in the GP's post.
I'd actually like to hear a good answer to the parent post. I'm against all drug use, including marijuana, but I can never seem to come up with a decent logical discourse to support my position against marijuana use. I'd be interested to see what
Isn't that a bit like thinking that the pope is laughing all the way to the bank?
Don't be so sure. I think it's quite disappointing (am watching third episode now).
The main character doesn't make any sense... stressing over little stuff, not running over to his GF's place for some action. I don't get it.
And don't get me started on the computing aspect of this. The guy needs seriously needs to run IM2. And how can he tolerate having that Fisher Price desktop all the time?
Really though, the lack of running out for booty call is just confusing to me. Sex may not be the most important thing in the world, but come on...
Part of being a member of society is giving help to those who need it.
Why is that? Why can't people take care of themselves? Why *must* my hard work go to support others against my will?
Of course, the majority of the population is too self consumed to do it willingly.
People center on greed and selfishness so much, but nobody seems to realize that people work hard for their money, so, of course they want to spend it on themselves. And to make matters worse, you want to give my money to the needy. Well, I live in a ghetto neighborhood chocked full of *needy* folks and you know what? A majority of the needy are shitty people that I don't *want* to help. It enfuriates me to have to support their lazy, consumerist, bullshit ways.
All you liberals out there, listen up. There are a shit ton of people who vote Republican, not because they like GW (I fucking hate that guy), because they are religious right (I'm atheist), or because they like any of the bullshit associated with the Republican party, but because we soooo hate giving money to all the peices of shit out there. We hate giving our money to asshats and screw ups. We hate funding Joe Moron's lifestyle and his family's lifestyle, perpetuating his bullshit ways and dilution of the gene pool. Sound hostile and extreme? You're damn right. I'm sick of these people.
You want to help the needy. Fine. But quit expecting others to go along with your forced redistribution of wealth. I don't work hard and stay out of trouble just so more money ends up in the hands of some meth head down the street.
I stopped going to Tom's Hardware after this article:
6 4-53.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_
How about just benchmarks without the pessimistic commentary? Perhaps I'm reading a little much into "Uncertain Future for AMD", but it doesn't sound pleasant to me.
But, then again, maybe I should see if Tom's Hardware has changed its tune as of late and give it another chance.