Actually, I would consider Satanism to be a branch of Christianity, as (as far as I know) they do believe the same core things, they just worship the other side of the system as it were.
Note in advance: I think ALL people that truly believe in a religion have a mental illness. This is regardless of what the religion is, but I do have a particular distaste for the Abrahamic religions, as they seem to espouse the most hatred in their religious texts.
Now, that is a pretty horrible quote from the Qu'ran, but there are equally as horrible ones from the Christian texts, and indeed very horrible ones in texts that are shared by pretty much all of the Abrahamic religions.
Yes... I am well aware of the origin of the name. What I was musing over was the interesting fact that it's named quite "plainly" in French, but in English we use a non-English name for it. This doesn't happen in most places - even very multilingual places like Confoederatio Helvetica (itself a Latin name, but better known as "Switzerland" in English) people just use the "plain" name in whatever language they're speaking.
You weren't modded flamebait for the content of your post, but for a combination of the opinion expressed within and the style in which it was put forth. I assume that the flamebait moderation was from someone who actually assumed you thought/knew differently than you do and that your post was therefore purely there to incite argument without content (flames) - the very definition of "flamebait".
Now, since it seems you actually DID mean what you posted, and were not just attempting to get a rise out of people, the gracious thing for that moderator to do would be to undo his moderation by posting (actually, I wish there was an "undo moderation" option for moderators - a few times, I've regretted making a moderation that I did when it became clear that a post that I interpreted as being flamebait really wasn't intended as such. I always do post to undo it, but that undoes other moderations as well, which I'd prefer not to)
Back on topic then: No one has been advocating state controlled or monopolistic internet providers, which is what it seems you're against. Perhaps you've misinterpreted the other posters on this point. What they've been talking about is monopoly providers of "last mile", which is the actual physical connection that you have. I live in an apartment and I have no control over who runs a line in to my apartment. This is the "last mile" for my apartment. I DO have a choice of what phone service provider I use, what ISP I use and so on, but it's not feasible for the 10 or so ISPs I could choose from to ALL run different lines around my whole city and in to my apartment, so instead the lines are all owned by one company (who thereby have a monopoly on the lines), and the ISPs use these lines. If it were free for the ISPs to decide who to run lines to, it's possible that many people would get NO access (where it's less financially viable for the provider to do so), so it's better if the lines are controlled, but the access to them is open.
I strongly agree with many of your posts and the points you make therein, but not this:
Breaking a law, even for 'a good cause' is never excusable
To me, this is too strong a line to take. In many cases it is good to break a law when that law is wrong. If you were on holiday in a country, and that country had passed a law (unbeknownst to you before you went) that all tourists must sacrifice their siblings to the great goat in the sky, would you do it, or would you break the law? Yes, it's an extreme and somewhat unrealistic example, but it's just an illustration. To me, there are several laws in different countries that I find morally reprehensible and will NOT follow them. Could it lead to anarchy if everyone did this? Yes... but that's why laws should (and usually are) created based on what the society views as right and correct - our own morals and ability to understand the morals of others (and potentially some sacrifices we must make, as long as they're "small" sacrifices (and again, that's is a human fudge factor that's hard to truly judge)) are what should stop us breaking laws, not the law in and of itself.
When he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, he is recorded as having an Indonesian passport...a country which didn't allow dual citizenship.
No country may revoke your citizenship of another country. They can deny you citizenship of their country if you don't renounce your previous citizenship(s), but they can't revoke it themselves. It's entirely possible Barack Obama is, or at some stage in the past has been, an Indonesian citizen. It's also possible at the time that Indonesia may have considered him to be "solely" an Indonesian citizen, and refusing to recognise any other status. This has no bearing on whether he was ALSO a US citizen at the time or not (or whether he may have been born one, lost it, and regained it, which is also not against the rules for becoming President)
Note: I don't actually care about whether he is or is not eligible - I don't live in the US and while I think he'll probably make a fine President, it's really not my business. I'm just interested in correcting facts regarding citizenship, since it's a matter I have spent a considerable amount of time on myself (I hold 2 current citizenships (was born with 2, but one was a different one than the 2 I now hold), 2 "permanent residence" statuses in other countries and am eligible for a 3rd citizenship (regain the one I lost) without losing my others if I decide to go live in that country for 2 years - it's a complex business!)
Actually, ANY country can grant you citizenship at will. Even if you don't want it! You don't have to recognise it, nor does anyone else, but if Botswana suddenly decided that I was a citizen of their country (despite having never been there, having no ties to it, or anything else), then I'd be a citizen of Botswana in addition to my other citizenships. Some countries have laws that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of another country, you must give up your claim to your current citizenship (and some that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of their country, you must renounce any other citizenships to do so), but as far as I know, there aren't any that would say if you're RECOGNISED as a citizen of another country you must give up others.
The whole point is that we are not just one nation. We are a collection of *united* *states*.
I'd phrase it that you *should* be such, and the founding of the union was *intended* as such, but in reality, that hasn't really gone to plan. Perhaps a push towards giving more power back to the states and removing the federal government from everyday life would be a good way to go (note that I don't advocate any particular system within the states - some may be quite liberal and others quite conservative, depending on what the people there want... Who knows, maybe Utah could become a theocracy, and Hawaii a Monarchy - regardless, it shouldn't matter.) Similar in principle to the EU, which (so far) is working relatively smoothly (not saying it doesn't have serious issues, just that in the grand scheme of things, it's really not so bad, and the issues are being looked at pretty seriously)
It's anarchy here in Germany? Ummmm... you ever actually BEEN here? You sir, are talking out of your posterior. I've lived in a lot of different countries and visited many more. Germany is definitely right near the top when it comes to "peaceful", "safe" and "organised". Sometimes I feel a bit more anarchy here would be a good thing just to stir it up a bit.
I still think that the results I get from Google are the result of their search algorithm. However their search algorithm is manipulated by various factors (many of which I'm sure they don't tell me about, and some that they do), and I have no problem with that. If I want information about French Poodles, I'll type "French Poodle" in to a Google search box and get some links to useful information back - honestly, as a "searcher" that's all I really care about. I don't mind that some results may be prioritised over others for any kind of reasons, as long as I get the info that I want. And I especially LIKE some kinds of manipulation such as them storing my search history and then tailoring future searches around it. It means that when I search for "wine" I get results about the WINE project whereas my ex-girlfriend gets results about a rather delicious grape-based alcoholic beverage.
The day you start paying for search results is the day I feel you're entitled to complain about them being manipulated - they never promised they wouldn't do so, so it's only reasonable to expect they would. (especially if you consider that most people such as myself see nothing inherently wrong with them doing so)
Sarcasm is a form of irony, but a specific form - it's more than just saying the opposite of what you mean for effect.
Can you give me a good definition of sarcasm from somewhere? As far as I'm aware it's simply irony with the specific subject of praise - e.g. even the childish, "oh, you're soooo clever" qualifies as sarcasm - not particular witty or interesting, but sarcasm nevertheless by the definition I'm familiar with (and also the definition in the non-English languages I'm familiar with that also have the word "sarcasm" or something close to it).
Doing a quick "define:sarcasm" search in Google seems to back up my thoughts, but random definitions from the web is hardly a good basis to work from and I don't have a collection of (English) dictionaries handy here at my office.
What with Google's admission that they manipulate search results I won't trust them anymore.
Hold on... you don't trust someone because they're honest about something? I don't quite follow your logic here... Whether you like or dislike what they do, you can't say they're not trustworthy if they come right out and say "yep, this is what we do" (unless they're lying)
If a company came to me and said, "give us all your data so we can sell it to other companies!", I'd trust them. I wouldn't do business with them, but I'd certainly trust them to do exactly what they said.
You're still lacking some imagination! How about this:
A major disease/poison/epidemic/whatever breaks out. You notice it first and slowly have your major senses excluding hearing eroded and destroyed by a it (over the course of a year or so). During this time, all of humanity other than you and other animals are also being affected by the disease/poison of course, but the effects are different on them, and instead of destroying their senses, it instead destroys their minds. Your family become animalistic and tries to eat you, but your younger sibling has been a bit more resistant to the disease (they'll be got eventually, just not yet) and protects you by killing your family in front of you. Then, in a fit of depression over what they've just done, they kill themselves right in front of you. After that, you're left to wander the streets, with increasingly worse senses and having to essentially go through a zombie apocalypse kind of scenario. Finally, everyone other than you succumbs to the disease/poison and dies, leaving you utterly alone. At this stage, you've totally lost all senses other than hearing. You fumble your way around in the darkness, but the silence of a dead earth is slowly driving you mad. You resolve to try to carry on anyway, in the spirit of defiance. You find a sign that, from touch, reveals it may be a supermarket and you stumble in, hoping to be able to consist off canned food. But you slip, fall and find yourself in some kind of enclosed underground freezer chamber (there's no power, so you won't freeze to death). You are now going to slowly die of starvation surrounded by the smell of rotten meat and decay, with nothing but your perfect hearing and memories of a world that died in agony and indignity.
It may only be anecdotal evidence, but I know a LOT of people that have used meth "now and then" for a few months and then basically "grown out of it" and not touched it again. I myself have used cocaine about 10 times in my life and have never felt the slightest bit of addiction towards it. Tobacco on the other hand is a pretty serious monkey on my back. Regarding heroin: I haven't known enough users to really say, but out of the 3 I've know, I'd only consider two to have been addicts.
Actually tobacco is far more deadly, killing almost all its users.
These stats seem to be REALLY hard to find... do you have a good source? I can find stats on number of deaths caused by smoking, but not as a percentage to actual smokers. Also, there's of course wiggle room for places where we're unsure, such as a coal miner who also smokes the occasional cigarette dying of lung cancer - these currently are almost certainly called "smoking related deaths" whether they really are or not. (not disagreeing with you, generally curious...)
I was actually under the impression that the number of smokers who die of smoking related illnesses is around 33%, but I don't know where I got that figure, so I might be totally wrong.
As a, more or less, strict libertarian, I believe that all drugs should be legalized.
Interestingly, my political views are close to the other side of the spectrum to yours, yet I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. I believe that almost all drugs should be legalised (the debate about exactly which should remain illegal is a separate one, and contains specific arguments), and yet I'm best described as a socialist in my political leanings (I believe it is in the best interest of the people for an effective government to make limitations upon the people for the interest of society in general).
My reasons for believing in the legalisation of drugs is quite simply that "they're not really that bad", and that human nature tends towards excesses only of the "forbidden fruit". We have the perfect test cases of alcohol and tobacco already, and can see from countries such as the Netherlands that psylocibin and marijuana don't really cause serious problems even when effectively freely available. With well placed education about the possible dangers and a public healthcare system to help people recover from abuse, it should be fine. It's up to people to make the right decisions about what they put in to themselves.
Will people abuse it? Certainly... but I'd say it'd be no worse than the current rates of alcoholism, which it seems society is willing to accept for the benefits that it brings. This is especially true for my own preferred substances (non addictive psychedelics such as LSD), but generally does apply across the board with only a few exceptions (as mentioned above, these exceptions are a different subject really)
Rightly or wrongly, society, as a whole, views drug use as a cost which carries no benefit.
Correct, and this is the view that I think is wrong. In my political viewpoint, it's generally considered that laws should be in place for what is best for society, and therefore if drugs were of no benefit to society, I do think they should be banned. However I actually think they are of benefit to society in that they bring about happiness, which is a fundamental requirement for any functioning society (not to mention the additional benefits of psychedelics including (but not limited to) improved cognitive reasoning skills, creativity and so on)
In no particular order, how about: New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Japan, Switzerland and Iceland? There's probably a lot more, but that covers a large part of the world, and I'd be quite confident that in each of those countries the percentage of home burglaries that result in violence (or even where violence is intended, which is harder to prove) is extremely low.
It's also worth pointing out that I have, in the past, associated with the kinds of people who commit burglaries (my former drug dealer and his friends mostly) and can categorically say that the majority of them are absolute cowards out for a "quick buck" as long as its easier than working - the first sign of trouble and they're out of there.
No, its an indictment of the people who will break into a home and rob other violently.
Rob other people violently being the key thing here...
Offenders used firearms in 41.8 percent of robberies, strong-arm tactics (hands, fists, feet, etc.) in 39.9 percent of robberies, and knives or cutting instruments in 8.9 percent of robberies. Other weapons were used in 9.4 percent of robberies.
I assume those figures are for the country you live in (I assume US)... my comment was attempting to say that it's sad that so many thefts there include violence (i.e. are robberies). In most of the world, it's FAR more common that if a thief is discovered, he/she will flee with no violence being necessary. The "left alone" scenario proposed by the earlier poster is what DOES happen in most of the world - if it's different in the US and the thieves will commit violence in order to continue their thieving, then THAT is a sad state of affairs. (actually, people breaking in to other people's homes with the intention of theft is pretty bad already, but that happens pretty much everywhere - it's the addition of expected violence that makes the difference)
Slashdot Mirror
Not true! God wrote in LISP Code.
Actually, I would consider Satanism to be a branch of Christianity, as (as far as I know) they do believe the same core things, they just worship the other side of the system as it were.
You whack me in the thumb with a hammer, and believe me that you've got a problem!
Note in advance: I think ALL people that truly believe in a religion have a mental illness. This is regardless of what the religion is, but I do have a particular distaste for the Abrahamic religions, as they seem to espouse the most hatred in their religious texts.
Now, that is a pretty horrible quote from the Qu'ran, but there are equally as horrible ones from the Christian texts, and indeed very horrible ones in texts that are shared by pretty much all of the Abrahamic religions.
Yes... I am well aware of the origin of the name. What I was musing over was the interesting fact that it's named quite "plainly" in French, but in English we use a non-English name for it. This doesn't happen in most places - even very multilingual places like Confoederatio Helvetica (itself a Latin name, but better known as "Switzerland" in English) people just use the "plain" name in whatever language they're speaking.
I've NEVER heard that interpretation before or ever considered it myself... are you sure it's not just you?
You weren't modded flamebait for the content of your post, but for a combination of the opinion expressed within and the style in which it was put forth. I assume that the flamebait moderation was from someone who actually assumed you thought/knew differently than you do and that your post was therefore purely there to incite argument without content (flames) - the very definition of "flamebait".
Now, since it seems you actually DID mean what you posted, and were not just attempting to get a rise out of people, the gracious thing for that moderator to do would be to undo his moderation by posting (actually, I wish there was an "undo moderation" option for moderators - a few times, I've regretted making a moderation that I did when it became clear that a post that I interpreted as being flamebait really wasn't intended as such. I always do post to undo it, but that undoes other moderations as well, which I'd prefer not to)
Back on topic then: No one has been advocating state controlled or monopolistic internet providers, which is what it seems you're against. Perhaps you've misinterpreted the other posters on this point. What they've been talking about is monopoly providers of "last mile", which is the actual physical connection that you have. I live in an apartment and I have no control over who runs a line in to my apartment. This is the "last mile" for my apartment. I DO have a choice of what phone service provider I use, what ISP I use and so on, but it's not feasible for the 10 or so ISPs I could choose from to ALL run different lines around my whole city and in to my apartment, so instead the lines are all owned by one company (who thereby have a monopoly on the lines), and the ISPs use these lines. If it were free for the ISPs to decide who to run lines to, it's possible that many people would get NO access (where it's less financially viable for the provider to do so), so it's better if the lines are controlled, but the access to them is open.
Umm... yeh, I just re-read your post and now feel like a fool... sorry... that "wooosh" was well deserved.
I find it a little interesting that it's called "Nouvelle Écosse" in French, but "Nova Scotia" in English... why not "New Scotland"?
I strongly agree with many of your posts and the points you make therein, but not this:
Breaking a law, even for 'a good cause' is never excusable
To me, this is too strong a line to take. In many cases it is good to break a law when that law is wrong. If you were on holiday in a country, and that country had passed a law (unbeknownst to you before you went) that all tourists must sacrifice their siblings to the great goat in the sky, would you do it, or would you break the law? Yes, it's an extreme and somewhat unrealistic example, but it's just an illustration. To me, there are several laws in different countries that I find morally reprehensible and will NOT follow them. Could it lead to anarchy if everyone did this? Yes... but that's why laws should (and usually are) created based on what the society views as right and correct - our own morals and ability to understand the morals of others (and potentially some sacrifices we must make, as long as they're "small" sacrifices (and again, that's is a human fudge factor that's hard to truly judge)) are what should stop us breaking laws, not the law in and of itself.
Thankyou! It seems so few people seem to understand this. I have nothing to add to your comment, but just wanted to post a reply to reinforce it.
When he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, he is recorded as having an Indonesian passport...a country which didn't allow dual citizenship.
No country may revoke your citizenship of another country. They can deny you citizenship of their country if you don't renounce your previous citizenship(s), but they can't revoke it themselves. It's entirely possible Barack Obama is, or at some stage in the past has been, an Indonesian citizen. It's also possible at the time that Indonesia may have considered him to be "solely" an Indonesian citizen, and refusing to recognise any other status. This has no bearing on whether he was ALSO a US citizen at the time or not (or whether he may have been born one, lost it, and regained it, which is also not against the rules for becoming President)
Note: I don't actually care about whether he is or is not eligible - I don't live in the US and while I think he'll probably make a fine President, it's really not my business. I'm just interested in correcting facts regarding citizenship, since it's a matter I have spent a considerable amount of time on myself (I hold 2 current citizenships (was born with 2, but one was a different one than the 2 I now hold), 2 "permanent residence" statuses in other countries and am eligible for a 3rd citizenship (regain the one I lost) without losing my others if I decide to go live in that country for 2 years - it's a complex business!)
Actually, ANY country can grant you citizenship at will. Even if you don't want it! You don't have to recognise it, nor does anyone else, but if Botswana suddenly decided that I was a citizen of their country (despite having never been there, having no ties to it, or anything else), then I'd be a citizen of Botswana in addition to my other citizenships. Some countries have laws that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of another country, you must give up your claim to your current citizenship (and some that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of their country, you must renounce any other citizenships to do so), but as far as I know, there aren't any that would say if you're RECOGNISED as a citizen of another country you must give up others.
The whole point is that we are not just one nation. We are a collection of *united* *states*.
I'd phrase it that you *should* be such, and the founding of the union was *intended* as such, but in reality, that hasn't really gone to plan. Perhaps a push towards giving more power back to the states and removing the federal government from everyday life would be a good way to go (note that I don't advocate any particular system within the states - some may be quite liberal and others quite conservative, depending on what the people there want... Who knows, maybe Utah could become a theocracy, and Hawaii a Monarchy - regardless, it shouldn't matter.) Similar in principle to the EU, which (so far) is working relatively smoothly (not saying it doesn't have serious issues, just that in the grand scheme of things, it's really not so bad, and the issues are being looked at pretty seriously)
It's anarchy here in Germany? Ummmm... you ever actually BEEN here? You sir, are talking out of your posterior. I've lived in a lot of different countries and visited many more. Germany is definitely right near the top when it comes to "peaceful", "safe" and "organised". Sometimes I feel a bit more anarchy here would be a good thing just to stir it up a bit.
I still think that the results I get from Google are the result of their search algorithm. However their search algorithm is manipulated by various factors (many of which I'm sure they don't tell me about, and some that they do), and I have no problem with that. If I want information about French Poodles, I'll type "French Poodle" in to a Google search box and get some links to useful information back - honestly, as a "searcher" that's all I really care about. I don't mind that some results may be prioritised over others for any kind of reasons, as long as I get the info that I want. And I especially LIKE some kinds of manipulation such as them storing my search history and then tailoring future searches around it. It means that when I search for "wine" I get results about the WINE project whereas my ex-girlfriend gets results about a rather delicious grape-based alcoholic beverage.
The day you start paying for search results is the day I feel you're entitled to complain about them being manipulated - they never promised they wouldn't do so, so it's only reasonable to expect they would. (especially if you consider that most people such as myself see nothing inherently wrong with them doing so)
Sarcasm is a form of irony, but a specific form - it's more than just saying the opposite of what you mean for effect.
Can you give me a good definition of sarcasm from somewhere? As far as I'm aware it's simply irony with the specific subject of praise - e.g. even the childish, "oh, you're soooo clever" qualifies as sarcasm - not particular witty or interesting, but sarcasm nevertheless by the definition I'm familiar with (and also the definition in the non-English languages I'm familiar with that also have the word "sarcasm" or something close to it).
Doing a quick "define:sarcasm" search in Google seems to back up my thoughts, but random definitions from the web is hardly a good basis to work from and I don't have a collection of (English) dictionaries handy here at my office.
What with Google's admission that they manipulate search results I won't trust them anymore.
Hold on... you don't trust someone because they're honest about something? I don't quite follow your logic here... Whether you like or dislike what they do, you can't say they're not trustworthy if they come right out and say "yep, this is what we do" (unless they're lying)
If a company came to me and said, "give us all your data so we can sell it to other companies!", I'd trust them. I wouldn't do business with them, but I'd certainly trust them to do exactly what they said.
You're still lacking some imagination! How about this:
A major disease/poison/epidemic/whatever breaks out. You notice it first and slowly have your major senses excluding hearing eroded and destroyed by a it (over the course of a year or so). During this time, all of humanity other than you and other animals are also being affected by the disease/poison of course, but the effects are different on them, and instead of destroying their senses, it instead destroys their minds. Your family become animalistic and tries to eat you, but your younger sibling has been a bit more resistant to the disease (they'll be got eventually, just not yet) and protects you by killing your family in front of you. Then, in a fit of depression over what they've just done, they kill themselves right in front of you. After that, you're left to wander the streets, with increasingly worse senses and having to essentially go through a zombie apocalypse kind of scenario. Finally, everyone other than you succumbs to the disease/poison and dies, leaving you utterly alone. At this stage, you've totally lost all senses other than hearing. You fumble your way around in the darkness, but the silence of a dead earth is slowly driving you mad. You resolve to try to carry on anyway, in the spirit of defiance. You find a sign that, from touch, reveals it may be a supermarket and you stumble in, hoping to be able to consist off canned food. But you slip, fall and find yourself in some kind of enclosed underground freezer chamber (there's no power, so you won't freeze to death). You are now going to slowly die of starvation surrounded by the smell of rotten meat and decay, with nothing but your perfect hearing and memories of a world that died in agony and indignity.
That any worse?
You clearly have little imagination - there are MUCH more unpleasant ways to die if you're creative about it...
Fully agree with parent...
It may only be anecdotal evidence, but I know a LOT of people that have used meth "now and then" for a few months and then basically "grown out of it" and not touched it again. I myself have used cocaine about 10 times in my life and have never felt the slightest bit of addiction towards it. Tobacco on the other hand is a pretty serious monkey on my back. Regarding heroin: I haven't known enough users to really say, but out of the 3 I've know, I'd only consider two to have been addicts.
Actually tobacco is far more deadly, killing almost all its users.
These stats seem to be REALLY hard to find... do you have a good source? I can find stats on number of deaths caused by smoking, but not as a percentage to actual smokers. Also, there's of course wiggle room for places where we're unsure, such as a coal miner who also smokes the occasional cigarette dying of lung cancer - these currently are almost certainly called "smoking related deaths" whether they really are or not. (not disagreeing with you, generally curious...)
I was actually under the impression that the number of smokers who die of smoking related illnesses is around 33%, but I don't know where I got that figure, so I might be totally wrong.
As a, more or less, strict libertarian, I believe that all drugs should be legalized.
Interestingly, my political views are close to the other side of the spectrum to yours, yet I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. I believe that almost all drugs should be legalised (the debate about exactly which should remain illegal is a separate one, and contains specific arguments), and yet I'm best described as a socialist in my political leanings (I believe it is in the best interest of the people for an effective government to make limitations upon the people for the interest of society in general).
My reasons for believing in the legalisation of drugs is quite simply that "they're not really that bad", and that human nature tends towards excesses only of the "forbidden fruit". We have the perfect test cases of alcohol and tobacco already, and can see from countries such as the Netherlands that psylocibin and marijuana don't really cause serious problems even when effectively freely available. With well placed education about the possible dangers and a public healthcare system to help people recover from abuse, it should be fine. It's up to people to make the right decisions about what they put in to themselves.
Will people abuse it? Certainly... but I'd say it'd be no worse than the current rates of alcoholism, which it seems society is willing to accept for the benefits that it brings. This is especially true for my own preferred substances (non addictive psychedelics such as LSD), but generally does apply across the board with only a few exceptions (as mentioned above, these exceptions are a different subject really)
Rightly or wrongly, society, as a whole, views drug use as a cost which carries no benefit.
Correct, and this is the view that I think is wrong. In my political viewpoint, it's generally considered that laws should be in place for what is best for society, and therefore if drugs were of no benefit to society, I do think they should be banned. However I actually think they are of benefit to society in that they bring about happiness, which is a fundamental requirement for any functioning society (not to mention the additional benefits of psychedelics including (but not limited to) improved cognitive reasoning skills, creativity and so on)
In no particular order, how about: New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Japan, Switzerland and Iceland? There's probably a lot more, but that covers a large part of the world, and I'd be quite confident that in each of those countries the percentage of home burglaries that result in violence (or even where violence is intended, which is harder to prove) is extremely low.
It's also worth pointing out that I have, in the past, associated with the kinds of people who commit burglaries (my former drug dealer and his friends mostly) and can categorically say that the majority of them are absolute cowards out for a "quick buck" as long as its easier than working - the first sign of trouble and they're out of there.
No, its an indictment of the people who will break into a home and rob other violently.
Rob other people violently being the key thing here...
Offenders used firearms in 41.8 percent of robberies, strong-arm tactics (hands, fists, feet, etc.) in 39.9 percent of robberies, and knives or cutting instruments in 8.9 percent of robberies. Other weapons were used in 9.4 percent of robberies.
I assume those figures are for the country you live in (I assume US)... my comment was attempting to say that it's sad that so many thefts there include violence (i.e. are robberies). In most of the world, it's FAR more common that if a thief is discovered, he/she will flee with no violence being necessary. The "left alone" scenario proposed by the earlier poster is what DOES happen in most of the world - if it's different in the US and the thieves will commit violence in order to continue their thieving, then THAT is a sad state of affairs. (actually, people breaking in to other people's homes with the intention of theft is pretty bad already, but that happens pretty much everywhere - it's the addition of expected violence that makes the difference)