wait, you're stalking my other posts? and you think heroin is like a vaccine?
of course any vaccine should be thoroughly tested before they inject it into anyone you raving moron
it's not like they are grabbing people and injecting them with experimental formulations. the science on this is well-established and there is a rigorous review process before anyone gets injected
you are a fearmongering, pridefully ignorant wackjob. you need to get and your kids your fucking vaccine and if you do not you ARE a health threat to us so we WILL save your kids and the rest of us from your dangerous ignorance, you irresponsible asshole
go live in the mountains and never have kids. if you won't do that, do what you have to do to be part of society you dumb fuck
could you cite the HPV vaccine concerns? i remember some fearmongering from the right during the last election
you need clear and present proof, not "maybe possibly could"
your concerns are empty and pointless fear about hypotheticals that don't exist. therefore they are of no value
vaccines work. we should mandate them
someday they might not work you say? someday they could be a danger you say? what does that even mean? every fucking thing we make in the world can fuck up. maybe someday the AI of self-driving cars will screw up and drive people off bridges, so we should never have self-driving cars. what? this is just unfounded fear
you have no right to shoot and kill someone unless they represent a mortal threat to you
likewise, government has no right to use force against anyone unless that person represents a clear threat to society
if you do not get vaccinated, you are a clear threat to society as a disease vector
therefore, society has the right to protect itself from your irresponsibility of exposing people to danger, by authorizing government to force you to vaccinate
it's exactly the same as protecting yourself from a home invader. you can get shot for invading a home, because you are an unknown mortal threat to the home's occupant. in the same way, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat that society must neutralize with use of force
the words in your comment are written as if government and society are forcing you to do something against your will for no good reason
but society has a very good reason
you are a threat to us if you do not get vaccinated
there's always going to be people with legitimate medical reasons like yourself not to get vaccinated
which is why you should be grateful for laws making vaccines mandatory: herd immunity means you and the few others unvaccinated for valid reasons are protected
where herd immunity breaks down, such as when not enough people get their vaccinations for fucking retarded reasons, you are at greater risk of getting maiming and hobbling diseases
i waded through your dreary insults then stopped reading here:
I personally see absolutely nothing cruel about warning someone against doing drugs because it will lead to a life of poverty, addiction, and early death and then making them face the consequences of their decisions when the turkey comes home to roost
no, douchebag, that is cruel
your views are invalid as your attitude is immoral
coming after all the condescension and assumed superiority, it was actually quite funny
when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved
the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion
we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. you understand there are side effects to addiction like destroyed lives. you do understand that right?
it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture. how do you eat? where do you sleep? how can you get a job or have a relationship when feeding an artificial need is more important to you than everything?
so you're angry, you want to fight because you don't see the problem. and you're stupid, because you don't understand it's not just about personal freedom. you're a complete loser
the tragedy of drugs is it can start in teenage years when:
1. people are in the most pain psychologically. friends, romance, etc.: it hurts in unique ways when you are young. turning to drugs is appealing to deal with this pain that would otherwise normally subside with age 2. people think they are immortal and invincible and their willpower is stronger than addiction. it never is 3. people are dumb. they can have a lot of book smarts but they don't have enough social awareness to understand where this all leads
so you wind up with ruined lives
addicts should always be treated the portuguese way" healthcare, not jail. it's just cheaper and a lot more humane
however the portuguese still go after dealers and the drug trade is still illegal. no country in the world is "all drug trade should be legal." no one thinks that works. because it proliferates more addicts
so it's a cost/benefit analysis: i am spending my money feeding and treating and housing addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first, to minimize costs and prevent the proliferation of more addicts
but of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. yet don't forget: if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house
so it is a very tricky balance. a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction
and every drug is different. every drug needs their own policy. there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers
something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society
but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively
something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive
when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved
the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion. the simple truth is, we're not cruel, we don't just let addicts turn to crime and starve and die and ignore them. and we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture and see how the problem festers and grows
i am spending my money feeding and housing useless addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first
of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. but if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house
so it's a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction. and the truth is every drug is different
something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society. but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively
something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive
there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers
the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth, cocaine, or especially heroin
physical bars can be transcended via the mind. but bars in the mind?
i never understood people who, in the name of freedom, support the use of the most freedom destroying methods known to man. anything that causes easy addiction is freedom destroying. a chemical interrupt switch in the mind that must be fed is not freedom and prioritizes over all other pursuits: work, food, sex. that's existential slavery and destruction of the self
i know some people have painful lives. and we all feel temporary pain or tedium that is relieved with substances with much power addictive potentials, that's ok. so let's call hard highly addictive drug use what it is: slow motion suicide by people with serious psychological problems. and after enough addiction, it's hard to tell how much of the original pain is still the causative agent. which is the problem: a perhaps temporary problem is now a permanent life hobbling addiction. let's stop lying by saying hard highly addictive drug use is some great exercise in freedom. it's exactly the opposite
i don't have a position. i am educating you on actual history and economic fact
meanwhile, the idea that markets self-regulate is not an extreme position. it is a moronic position. to believe markets achieve fairness on their own requires one to deny well-established facts and to believe in low iq fantasies. you are on the same order as an antivaxxer or a creationist. really
the physical cost is the fusing of atomic nuclei in a ball of gas we did not invest anything in and will burn for another few billion years with no effort on our part
the financial cost of the energy source is actually zero
railroads were left to rot, because there was no more money in them, even though they were essential
as we automate more and more, more parts of the economy will enter this twilight zone of "absolutely necessary, not worth any capitalist's effort"
so like railroads those sectors will become wards of the state. not because "evil communists destroying economy" but "financially mediocre economic sector needs to be on life support"
all markets will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally
this quasireligious notion that markets will remain balanced and fair and virtuous by magic free market fairy is an insane belief on the order of antivaxxers and creationists, directly contrary to economic facts and economic history
Only if those who benefit most from that switch are the ones in control of the state
we are in control of the state. the people. at least we should be, we're not to the extent to which the plutocrats corrupted it
so i don't understand this treatment of government as "evil bad guys want to steal your freedom for shits and giggles like a bad cartoon villain" and plutocrats as "innocent capitalists driving the economy" (as they rent seek and block economic progress with monopolies/ oligopolies). what is the only tool you have against plutocrat abuse? the government. but the propaganda has so many morons backwards on that
the railroad became a ward of the state not because "evil communists stealing" but "capitalists treat it likes its radioactive"
but its vital to the economy. the state won't take it over to hurt people because they are a james bond villain in some demented fantasy life. but to prevent people from being hurt by lack of vital infrastructure
but if costs and profits approach each other so close the uncertainty of a profit looms large and its just a hassle, static well-established commodities would be abandoned to the state to manage
moved to the state to manage not as in communist take over
more like railroads: "not profitable and no one wants to deal with it, but it's still vital"
Slashdot Mirror
vaccines have to be mandatory as freedom has nothing to do with prideful ignorance that is a threat to safety of and well being others
get it shitbag?
wait, you're stalking my other posts? and you think heroin is like a vaccine?
of course any vaccine should be thoroughly tested before they inject it into anyone you raving moron
it's not like they are grabbing people and injecting them with experimental formulations. the science on this is well-established and there is a rigorous review process before anyone gets injected
you are a fearmongering, pridefully ignorant wackjob. you need to get and your kids your fucking vaccine and if you do not you ARE a health threat to us so we WILL save your kids and the rest of us from your dangerous ignorance, you irresponsible asshole
go live in the mountains and never have kids. if you won't do that, do what you have to do to be part of society you dumb fuck
go to an old graveyard
look at the old tombstones
look at the ages
you're a pridefully ignorant asshole and your stupidity is dangerous to the rest of us
could you cite the HPV vaccine concerns? i remember some fearmongering from the right during the last election
you need clear and present proof, not "maybe possibly could"
your concerns are empty and pointless fear about hypotheticals that don't exist. therefore they are of no value
vaccines work. we should mandate them
someday they might not work you say? someday they could be a danger you say? what does that even mean? every fucking thing we make in the world can fuck up. maybe someday the AI of self-driving cars will screw up and drive people off bridges, so we should never have self-driving cars. what? this is just unfounded fear
your position is nonsense
you have no right to shoot and kill someone unless they represent a mortal threat to you
likewise, government has no right to use force against anyone unless that person represents a clear threat to society
if you do not get vaccinated, you are a clear threat to society as a disease vector
therefore, society has the right to protect itself from your irresponsibility of exposing people to danger, by authorizing government to force you to vaccinate
it's exactly the same as protecting yourself from a home invader. you can get shot for invading a home, because you are an unknown mortal threat to the home's occupant. in the same way, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat that society must neutralize with use of force
the words in your comment are written as if government and society are forcing you to do something against your will for no good reason
but society has a very good reason
you are a threat to us if you do not get vaccinated
there's always going to be people with legitimate medical reasons like yourself not to get vaccinated
which is why you should be grateful for laws making vaccines mandatory: herd immunity means you and the few others unvaccinated for valid reasons are protected
where herd immunity breaks down, such as when not enough people get their vaccinations for fucking retarded reasons, you are at greater risk of getting maiming and hobbling diseases
i waded through your dreary insults then stopped reading here:
no, douchebag, that is cruel
your views are invalid as your attitude is immoral
coming after all the condescension and assumed superiority, it was actually quite funny
when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved
the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion
we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. you understand there are side effects to addiction like destroyed lives. you do understand that right?
it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture. how do you eat? where do you sleep? how can you get a job or have a relationship when feeding an artificial need is more important to you than everything?
so you're angry, you want to fight because you don't see the problem. and you're stupid, because you don't understand it's not just about personal freedom. you're a complete loser
the tragedy of drugs is it can start in teenage years when:
1. people are in the most pain psychologically. friends, romance, etc.: it hurts in unique ways when you are young. turning to drugs is appealing to deal with this pain that would otherwise normally subside with age
2. people think they are immortal and invincible and their willpower is stronger than addiction. it never is
3. people are dumb. they can have a lot of book smarts but they don't have enough social awareness to understand where this all leads
so you wind up with ruined lives
addicts should always be treated the portuguese way" healthcare, not jail. it's just cheaper and a lot more humane
however the portuguese still go after dealers and the drug trade is still illegal. no country in the world is "all drug trade should be legal." no one thinks that works. because it proliferates more addicts
so it's a cost/benefit analysis: i am spending my money feeding and treating and housing addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first, to minimize costs and prevent the proliferation of more addicts
but of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. yet don't forget: if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house
so it is a very tricky balance. a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction
and every drug is different. every drug needs their own policy. there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers
something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society
but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively
something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive
when you're an addict you can't maintain a job or relationship. so someone has to feed and house you. that's the taxpayer. therefore, we are involved
the notion that it is all just about freedom is a very immature teenage notion. the simple truth is, we're not cruel, we don't just let addicts turn to crime and starve and die and ignore them. and we're also involved because the side effects of addiction don't happen on desert islands, they happen in our communities. it's simply not a question of just personal freedom unless you're an ignorant simpleton who can't see the big picture and see how the problem festers and grows
i am spending my money feeding and housing useless addicts, or i am spending my money fighting dealers. i will probably do both, that's just the maintenance cost of civilization, but i'd like to jail as many dealers as i can first
of course, it costs society in terms of mafia proliferation when you make the drug trade illegal. but if you permissively allow hard drugs to flow freely, more people turn to them for their problems, and there are more addicts you have to feed and house
so it's a cost/ benefit analysis of going after the drug supply, or just passively dealing with the costs of addiction. and the truth is every drug is different
something like alcohol, it's better to deal with alcoholism and allow the drug to flow freely. that's the lowest cost on society. but something like heroin, it's very important to remove dealers ASAP, as heroin addiction is life crippling and easy to acquire. so the lowest cost is to go after the drug trade aggressively
something like marijuana, that should be completely legal and ignored. it's not addictive
there is no such thing as one drug policy for all drugs. there has to be a unique policy for each drug. and each policy is some combination of going after dealers and treating addicts. for some drugs, you forget the dealers and just treat the addicts, with other drugs you have to treat so many addicts, it helps to crush the dealers
the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth, cocaine, or especially heroin
physical bars can be transcended via the mind. but bars in the mind?
i never understood people who, in the name of freedom, support the use of the most freedom destroying methods known to man. anything that causes easy addiction is freedom destroying. a chemical interrupt switch in the mind that must be fed is not freedom and prioritizes over all other pursuits: work, food, sex. that's existential slavery and destruction of the self
i know some people have painful lives. and we all feel temporary pain or tedium that is relieved with substances with much power addictive potentials, that's ok. so let's call hard highly addictive drug use what it is: slow motion suicide by people with serious psychological problems. and after enough addiction, it's hard to tell how much of the original pain is still the causative agent. which is the problem: a perhaps temporary problem is now a permanent life hobbling addiction. let's stop lying by saying hard highly addictive drug use is some great exercise in freedom. it's exactly the opposite
you are not in any masters program in any college or university. you're a bad liar as well as a moron
no one as stupid as you can get that far and still believe what you have written about a democracy and a republic
you really need to learn to stop talking about topics you obviously do not understand. unless you like people hating you and laughing at you
well said with an even temper
i don't have a position. i am educating you on actual history and economic fact
meanwhile, the idea that markets self-regulate is not an extreme position. it is a moronic position. to believe markets achieve fairness on their own requires one to deny well-established facts and to believe in low iq fantasies. you are on the same order as an antivaxxer or a creationist. really
the physical cost is the fusing of atomic nuclei in a ball of gas we did not invest anything in and will burn for another few billion years with no effort on our part
the financial cost of the energy source is actually zero
solar energy is not a perpetual motion machine
railroads were left to rot, because there was no more money in them, even though they were essential
as we automate more and more, more parts of the economy will enter this twilight zone of "absolutely necessary, not worth any capitalist's effort"
so like railroads those sectors will become wards of the state. not because "evil communists destroying economy" but "financially mediocre economic sector needs to be on life support"
there are no checks and balances
all markets will gravitate to monopoly/ oligopoly naturally
this quasireligious notion that markets will remain balanced and fair and virtuous by magic free market fairy is an insane belief on the order of antivaxxers and creationists, directly contrary to economic facts and economic history
he's a genuinely low iq loser
he's exactly the sort of low brain wattage propaganda victim that helps keep the corrupt in power. the "useful fools"
easily manipulated, fucking stupid
exactly
it's rather incredible how stupid and propagandized people can be that those who are abusing them are seen as another victim
and the only tool they have against plutocrat abuse, the government, is somehow the ultimate, cartoon villain cause of their victimhood
the plutocrats corrupted your government you morons!
insanity
we are in control of the state. the people. at least we should be, we're not to the extent to which the plutocrats corrupted it
so i don't understand this treatment of government as "evil bad guys want to steal your freedom for shits and giggles like a bad cartoon villain" and plutocrats as "innocent capitalists driving the economy" (as they rent seek and block economic progress with monopolies/ oligopolies). what is the only tool you have against plutocrat abuse? the government. but the propaganda has so many morons backwards on that
the railroad became a ward of the state not because "evil communists stealing" but "capitalists treat it likes its radioactive"
but its vital to the economy. the state won't take it over to hurt people because they are a james bond villain in some demented fantasy life. but to prevent people from being hurt by lack of vital infrastructure
obama is perhaps our most cerebral president ever, or the second most, after wilson
but then again, what do we expect from a communist muslim atheist born in kenya. right?
i'm not clicking a mystery link
make your case plainly in your own words or don't bother posting at all
"here, read this indoctrination without any motivation" is not how real life works
true, good point
but if costs and profits approach each other so close the uncertainty of a profit looms large and its just a hassle, static well-established commodities would be abandoned to the state to manage
moved to the state to manage not as in communist take over
more like railroads: "not profitable and no one wants to deal with it, but it's still vital"
nothing is truly free. just like we can never have absolute zero or a true vacuum
but we get to a point where cost in capital and effort is so low, compared to vast production, that it is virtually free