in a world where drugs are easily accessible, drugs will be turned to more often by more people to deaden the simple pain of existence. thus, creating more addicts. prohibition does not stop an addict from getting a drug, but by making supply scarcer and more expensive, it minimizes the creation of more addicts
prohibition creates many evils. by minimizing the creation of more addicts, it also stops many evils too
if make access easy to substances that powerfully addict, you create more addicts. duh
speaking meaningfully on the subject of prohibition:
consider every single evil that can traced to prohibition, and addiction itself is still far, far worse
this is what i am trying to say: why do some people fight prohibition with such gusto, and yet speak nothing to what addiction does to people's lives. it speaks of someone who is either completely ignorant of actual drug use or is an addict themselves rationalizing their problem
addiction is the greatest destroyer of freedom ever know to mankind, far worse than the crimes of every government that has ever existed put together
if you don't understand that about the nature of addiction, you don't understand drugs
block 50 million urls, 100 million spring up the next day. block those, and 200 million more pop up. it's a game of whack-a-mole you can never win. so they'll waste all this money, instead of just letting their people be free. of course a lot of it is porn and thought critical of religion, and this is why they hate it. because it represents their end: the end of the thought control of an oppressive system, this one based on religion. they know what they are fighting: they are fighting their extinction. and by "they" i mean those who think you can control or dominate others, based on religion or whatever basis that unfortunately some in society still believe is right. it just makes your society weak and violent and cruel
prohibition makes supply harder and more expensive to get. this doesn't prevent addicts, who will do absolutely anything to get their fix, but it prevents the creation of more addicts. oh certainly not all. addiction will never go away. it's simply a maintenance function of civilization: MINIMIZE the creation of addicts, and the horrible lives they lead, in the name of society AND the individual. prohibition doesn't work for all drugs, but for SOME drugs, it does work, simply because any exposure is ruinous to people's lives, so you make exposure more difficult. not impossible. just more difficult
addiction to drugs is the most ruinous influence in all of human history. stack up the crimes of every government that has ever existed in all of human history, and it is but a tiny fraction of the lives ruined by addictive substances. right now, in various parts of the world poor people are taking meager resources and spending it on booze, rather than their education, or to food on their family's plate. to fill their lives with emptiness rather than pain
drugs are an evil far greater than any government could ever be (unless, of course, the government forced you to take drugs, that would be the ultimate fascist government)
creative people have a unique position in life and often live in a lot of pain for having a lonely point of view. as such, they often turn to drugs. drugs do not make creativity, it hampers it. most artists on drugs have bemoaned the monkey on their back that gets in the way of their work. even william s. burroughs. correlation, causation, etc., etc
and finally, what happens to people who are addicts and can't afford their fix, regardless of legality. what does a person do when they have a compulsion that overrides the need for all relationships, all food, all sex... what will they do to get that fix? anything. right now. fix must be filled. you wish this sort of life on anyone but your worst enemies?
you seem to have an ignorant fanboy's view of drugs, that glamorizes it as some sort chic habit. good luck to you, you're going to need it
addiction creates an interrupt switch in your mind that prevents you from maintaining productive work and relationships
i understand the problems with prohibition. what i don't understand is why some people, such as yourself, seem completely oblivious as to what addiction is, what it means, and what it does to people's lives, completely independently of any other causes and effects on this issue
if you can't speak meaningfully on the subject of addiction, you really should stop commenting on the subject of drug use
#1. the smaller the town , the pettier the politics
#2. there is one user we keep banning, and they keep coming back under a new name, and you can always tell with 100% accuracy that it is the same person, based on sentence cadence and agenda, and overall personality and attitude
yes, the quote has been misquoted, taken out of context, and then taken on a life of its own as an example of meaning that has nothing to do with shakespeare... not by me, but in the wider society and culture for many decades
so i am on solid footing, in this odd respect
it's actually probably a good academic write up someone should do: how the shakespeare quote got misquoted, by who, placed out of context, and became a symbol for a meaning that has nothing to do with shakespeare, and yet captures so succinctly a certain meaning, that it has taken on a life of its own outside of the bard's realm
so i was well aware of this odd lineage before i used the "quote" here today, and i will use it again, in full knowledge of the disconnect, and probably face posts like yours again, but its ok, because the quote is still useful as an example of the meaning it seems to convey, with no context
there is a certain strain of people running around, voting for ron paul, idolizing ayn rand, arguing for no financial regulation, abolishing the fed, etc., that are basically free market fundamentalists. a pseudoreligion whose central belief is that a market without any rules will somehow be more fair. i thought 2008 would take the wind out of their sails, since 2008 is what you get as the end result of deregulation that started under reagan, but they have delusionally marched on, saying 2008 was the product of big government
perhaps the only religious movement more odious than islamic fundamentalism is the free market fundamentalist libertarians and their prophet, ayn rand, peace be upon her
i care about all of these things, and i know that unfair wealth distribution, because my country's government has been hijacked by financial interests, has caused these problems. your problem is you think government is the source of these problems. the government has been reduced to a puppet, controlled by strings by corporate and well-financed interests, who had regulations removed ever since the era of reagan, bringing us to the terrible 2008 situation
look at canada: how and why did it weather the financial storm? a strong solid central government that rebuffed financial interests to relax regulations in sectors that bubbled in the usa
the source of the problem is CORPORATIONS. not GOVERNMENT. the solution is to FIX government, not DESTROY it
further reductions in regulations will result in further degradation of the economy. know your history fool
right, and the usa is becoming like feudal russia, as more wealth and power accumulates into the hands of the few, as we remove regulations on the flow of money. we need to tax the rich harder in order to move back towards a more fair society. otherwise, we are headed to a world where our democracy is a sham and everything is controlled by a 5% few with 90% of society's wealth
and i don't understand how or why you think the example of feudal russia is anything but an example of exactly what i am talking about:
"wealth that flows without any government involvement naturally accumulates into the hands of a few
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
a world ripe for violent revolution"
aka, russia before the russian revolution. are you not clear on that or any other example from history? the french revolution, the arab spring last year... what are you missing?
without a strong central government that reallocates wealth away from a wealthy few, you get societies that will revolt, because these are unfair societies. the "government" becomes "whatever the rich few want"
what exactly do you not understand here about the simple and obvious lessons of history?
just so we are absolutely clear, you do not agree with these words in quotes?
"wealth that flows without any government involvement naturally accumulates into the hands of a few
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
a world ripe for violent revolution"
just to be absolutely clear: you do not agree with those words in quotes?
you don't have a very good understanding of how wealth accumulates. if there were no government, money and power would naturally flow to the hands of a few. without government. do you understand this?
"How is using government enforcement (read - threat of violence) a fair position to take away and redistribute from some to others?"
to counteract the natural accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, backed up with their own violent means of force. this is what government is in some places in the world
in a democratic country, where the government is supposed to represent the will of the people, the people are empowered to make sure that such accumulation is counteracted, so that the people remain in charge
your criticism seems to stem from a world without any force of violence. this is an imaginary place. a place without government is a place of total violence: warlords
what modern civilized government represents is the use of violent force according to policies and procedures. in a democratic country, these policies and procedures are dictated by the people. for example: how the police and military operate. this idea that there need be no military or no police is an absurdity that has no understanding of human nature
democratic government is just implied force and violence according to policies and procedures. take away the democratic government, and what do you get? you still get implied force and violence, but without any policies and procedures, just the will of the guy currently in control of the largest pile of money
people who think like you see the force and violence of government and criticize it from an imaginary world where no violence exists. violence always exists. so if you are a wise person, you criticize HOW the implied threat of force is structured in society, not the mindless criticism that it shouldn't exist at all. of course the threat of violence should not exist. but it always will exist. so we move beyond this question that is only intriguing to children and simpletons, and we begin to ask the mature question: ok, if violence exists, from what quarter does it come, for what reason? in anarchy, it is from any quarter, for any reason. in a democratic society, it is according to rules agreed upon by the people
position B is what i elucidate. position A is what you attack
i have nothing to do with position A. you have not spoken to anything about position B
therefore, you have not spoken to anything about who i am and what i stand for, you are merely having an argument with a bogeymen that only exists inside your head. a bogeyman i do not resemble and having nothing to do with, despite your illusionary beliefs we are one and the same person. this is a flaw in cognition and perception on your part
please make note of this, and why i am not having a discussion with you: not because i don't want to, but because it is impossible. because i am not part of the conversation anymore, you have cut me out of it
someday i hope to have a rational discussion with you. today is not that day
I am doing none of those things. I am calling you a Dnepropetrovsk maniac.
Which is completely unfair and groundless of me.
In exactly the same way what you write above about what I stand for is unfair and groundless.
But it makes sense in your mind to say these ridiculous things about what I am saying to you, because you've stopped thinking and being rational on the subject, and have gone right to full-blown delusion on the subject.
So, in a way, you are a Dnepropetrovsk maniac. But not a maniac in a way those two "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs" are, that would be unfair: you are just a harmless intarweb crackpot.
It's just too bad your mode of thinking is being used to justify so much economic injustice in this world by others with real power, and that so many maniacs like yourself are so ready to accept the thinking, without any rational analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
in a world where drugs are easily accessible, drugs will be turned to more often by more people to deaden the simple pain of existence. thus, creating more addicts. prohibition does not stop an addict from getting a drug, but by making supply scarcer and more expensive, it minimizes the creation of more addicts
prohibition creates many evils. by minimizing the creation of more addicts, it also stops many evils too
if make access easy to substances that powerfully addict, you create more addicts. duh
speaking meaningfully on the subject of prohibition:
consider every single evil that can traced to prohibition, and addiction itself is still far, far worse
this is what i am trying to say: why do some people fight prohibition with such gusto, and yet speak nothing to what addiction does to people's lives. it speaks of someone who is either completely ignorant of actual drug use or is an addict themselves rationalizing their problem
addiction is the greatest destroyer of freedom ever know to mankind, far worse than the crimes of every government that has ever existed put together
if you don't understand that about the nature of addiction, you don't understand drugs
block 50 million urls, 100 million spring up the next day. block those, and 200 million more pop up. it's a game of whack-a-mole you can never win. so they'll waste all this money, instead of just letting their people be free. of course a lot of it is porn and thought critical of religion, and this is why they hate it. because it represents their end: the end of the thought control of an oppressive system, this one based on religion. they know what they are fighting: they are fighting their extinction. and by "they" i mean those who think you can control or dominate others, based on religion or whatever basis that unfortunately some in society still believe is right. it just makes your society weak and violent and cruel
prohibition makes supply harder and more expensive to get. this doesn't prevent addicts, who will do absolutely anything to get their fix, but it prevents the creation of more addicts. oh certainly not all. addiction will never go away. it's simply a maintenance function of civilization: MINIMIZE the creation of addicts, and the horrible lives they lead, in the name of society AND the individual. prohibition doesn't work for all drugs, but for SOME drugs, it does work, simply because any exposure is ruinous to people's lives, so you make exposure more difficult. not impossible. just more difficult
addiction to drugs is the most ruinous influence in all of human history. stack up the crimes of every government that has ever existed in all of human history, and it is but a tiny fraction of the lives ruined by addictive substances. right now, in various parts of the world poor people are taking meager resources and spending it on booze, rather than their education, or to food on their family's plate. to fill their lives with emptiness rather than pain
drugs are an evil far greater than any government could ever be (unless, of course, the government forced you to take drugs, that would be the ultimate fascist government)
creative people have a unique position in life and often live in a lot of pain for having a lonely point of view. as such, they often turn to drugs. drugs do not make creativity, it hampers it. most artists on drugs have bemoaned the monkey on their back that gets in the way of their work. even william s. burroughs. correlation, causation, etc., etc
and finally, what happens to people who are addicts and can't afford their fix, regardless of legality. what does a person do when they have a compulsion that overrides the need for all relationships, all food, all sex... what will they do to get that fix? anything. right now. fix must be filled. you wish this sort of life on anyone but your worst enemies?
you seem to have an ignorant fanboy's view of drugs, that glamorizes it as some sort chic habit. good luck to you, you're going to need it
addiction is the problem, not prohibition
addiction creates an interrupt switch in your mind that prevents you from maintaining productive work and relationships
i understand the problems with prohibition. what i don't understand is why some people, such as yourself, seem completely oblivious as to what addiction is, what it means, and what it does to people's lives, completely independently of any other causes and effects on this issue
if you can't speak meaningfully on the subject of addiction, you really should stop commenting on the subject of drug use
munchausen by tor
munchausen by onion router
munchausen by bittorrent
hey this is fun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy
i thought that was called the rubber room
it's funny to watch users who are not aware of this maneuver yet screaming about why people are not replying to them
alas, not possible under the current system (ning)
"cholsterol is not a problem" trolls
not as bad as gluten/ fructose/ artificial sweetener/ vaccination trolls
still annoying
http://www.livestrong.com/article/38118-high-cholesterol-effects-eyes/
around 2,000 users
#1. the smaller the town , the pettier the politics
#2. there is one user we keep banning, and they keep coming back under a new name, and you can always tell with 100% accuracy that it is the same person, based on sentence cadence and agenda, and overall personality and attitude
that was japanese you stupid idiot
yes, the quote has been misquoted, taken out of context, and then taken on a life of its own as an example of meaning that has nothing to do with shakespeare... not by me, but in the wider society and culture for many decades
so i am on solid footing, in this odd respect
it's actually probably a good academic write up someone should do: how the shakespeare quote got misquoted, by who, placed out of context, and became a symbol for a meaning that has nothing to do with shakespeare, and yet captures so succinctly a certain meaning, that it has taken on a life of its own outside of the bard's realm
so i was well aware of this odd lineage before i used the "quote" here today, and i will use it again, in full knowledge of the disconnect, and probably face posts like yours again, but its ok, because the quote is still useful as an example of the meaning it seems to convey, with no context
it depends. is it 11 am and you are in a bar when you say it?
there is a certain strain of people running around, voting for ron paul, idolizing ayn rand, arguing for no financial regulation, abolishing the fed, etc., that are basically free market fundamentalists. a pseudoreligion whose central belief is that a market without any rules will somehow be more fair. i thought 2008 would take the wind out of their sails, since 2008 is what you get as the end result of deregulation that started under reagan, but they have delusionally marched on, saying 2008 was the product of big government
"methinks the lady doth protest too much"
if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
perhaps the only religious movement more odious than islamic fundamentalism is the free market fundamentalist libertarians and their prophet, ayn rand, peace be upon her
i care about all of these things, and i know that unfair wealth distribution, because my country's government has been hijacked by financial interests, has caused these problems. your problem is you think government is the source of these problems. the government has been reduced to a puppet, controlled by strings by corporate and well-financed interests, who had regulations removed ever since the era of reagan, bringing us to the terrible 2008 situation
look at canada: how and why did it weather the financial storm? a strong solid central government that rebuffed financial interests to relax regulations in sectors that bubbled in the usa
the source of the problem is CORPORATIONS. not GOVERNMENT. the solution is to FIX government, not DESTROY it
further reductions in regulations will result in further degradation of the economy. know your history fool
wealth accumulates into the hands of the few. naturally. no government involvement needed
you don't understand this
so you're an idiot
right, and the usa is becoming like feudal russia, as more wealth and power accumulates into the hands of the few, as we remove regulations on the flow of money. we need to tax the rich harder in order to move back towards a more fair society. otherwise, we are headed to a world where our democracy is a sham and everything is controlled by a 5% few with 90% of society's wealth
and i don't understand how or why you think the example of feudal russia is anything but an example of exactly what i am talking about:
"wealth that flows without any government involvement naturally accumulates into the hands of a few
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
a world ripe for violent revolution"
aka, russia before the russian revolution. are you not clear on that or any other example from history? the french revolution, the arab spring last year... what are you missing?
without a strong central government that reallocates wealth away from a wealthy few, you get societies that will revolt, because these are unfair societies. the "government" becomes "whatever the rich few want"
what exactly do you not understand here about the simple and obvious lessons of history?
just so we are absolutely clear, you do not agree with these words in quotes?
"wealth that flows without any government involvement naturally accumulates into the hands of a few
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
a world ripe for violent revolution"
just to be absolutely clear: you do not agree with those words in quotes?
how did you get so blind?
"I want wealth to flow how it flows without government coercion, is this clear?"
wealth that flows without any government involvement naturally accumulates into the hands of a few
so you have a society of a few billionaires, and 95% are in poverty
that's the world you want. a world ripe for violent revolution, by the way
just so you understand how your ideology plays out in the real world
you don't have a very good understanding of how wealth accumulates. if there were no government, money and power would naturally flow to the hands of a few. without government. do you understand this?
"How is using government enforcement (read - threat of violence) a fair position to take away and redistribute from some to others?"
to counteract the natural accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, backed up with their own violent means of force. this is what government is in some places in the world
in a democratic country, where the government is supposed to represent the will of the people, the people are empowered to make sure that such accumulation is counteracted, so that the people remain in charge
your criticism seems to stem from a world without any force of violence. this is an imaginary place. a place without government is a place of total violence: warlords
what modern civilized government represents is the use of violent force according to policies and procedures. in a democratic country, these policies and procedures are dictated by the people. for example: how the police and military operate. this idea that there need be no military or no police is an absurdity that has no understanding of human nature
democratic government is just implied force and violence according to policies and procedures. take away the democratic government, and what do you get? you still get implied force and violence, but without any policies and procedures, just the will of the guy currently in control of the largest pile of money
people who think like you see the force and violence of government and criticize it from an imaginary world where no violence exists. violence always exists. so if you are a wise person, you criticize HOW the implied threat of force is structured in society, not the mindless criticism that it shouldn't exist at all. of course the threat of violence should not exist. but it always will exist. so we move beyond this question that is only intriguing to children and simpletons, and we begin to ask the mature question: ok, if violence exists, from what quarter does it come, for what reason? in anarchy, it is from any quarter, for any reason. in a democratic society, it is according to rules agreed upon by the people
position A: exists only in your head
position B: exists in reality
position B is what i elucidate. position A is what you attack
i have nothing to do with position A. you have not spoken to anything about position B
therefore, you have not spoken to anything about who i am and what i stand for, you are merely having an argument with a bogeymen that only exists inside your head. a bogeyman i do not resemble and having nothing to do with, despite your illusionary beliefs we are one and the same person. this is a flaw in cognition and perception on your part
please make note of this, and why i am not having a discussion with you: not because i don't want to, but because it is impossible. because i am not part of the conversation anymore, you have cut me out of it
someday i hope to have a rational discussion with you. today is not that day
I am doing none of those things. I am calling you a Dnepropetrovsk maniac.
Which is completely unfair and groundless of me.
In exactly the same way what you write above about what I stand for is unfair and groundless.
But it makes sense in your mind to say these ridiculous things about what I am saying to you, because you've stopped thinking and being rational on the subject, and have gone right to full-blown delusion on the subject.
So, in a way, you are a Dnepropetrovsk maniac. But not a maniac in a way those two "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs" are, that would be unfair: you are just a harmless intarweb crackpot.
It's just too bad your mode of thinking is being used to justify so much economic injustice in this world by others with real power, and that so many maniacs like yourself are so ready to accept the thinking, without any rational analysis.