Mutilated cattle may be an entirely different phenomenon than aliens (see el chupacabra, for instance, for a weirder, but alternate explanation), but as far as anally-probed people -- well, again, if you were going to anally probe people, would you anally probe the President or some celebrity or would you pick some poor schmuck whom no one is ever going to believe?
Just a question, but wouldn't it be "la chupacabra"... I looked that the Spanish Wikipedia article but it looks like they keep using "el Chupacabras", and at least once use "los Chupacabras"... I figure, there's no real way to tell. >_
Seriously, for such an advanced species, they make very little sense.
Not if you watch Star Trek. Don't you know the prime directive? They're forbidden from actually interacting with us, because we're not ready for their technology yet.
WE need to get back to interstellar travel before Xenu the XXXXXIVI will let us back into the Federation. Oh and get rid of all our thetons...
Yeah that's true, I used to love watching the Simpsons. Then Family Guy, Futurama...
Then TV became too boring to entertain me, and I started going to video game cons, and building guitar amplifiers. (Building guitar amps == "WARNING: HIGH VOLTAGES, DANGEROUS, NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE, YOU WILL DIE" hmm ok I'll just build my own *700V on the plates instead of 300V*... I've got to be pining for a darwin award or something)
a.) I don't do any illegal recreational drugs b.) I don't prostitute myself c.) I am a born American citizen d.) I do, yes, drink
So... I don't want my vices to be illegal. And why should vices be illegal anyways? Isn't being arrogant a vice? Should that be illegal?
On the other hand, I think alcohol should be less controlled... I don't drink and drive, so I'm happily ready to make it punishable with even higher fines and penalties. I just like it when Alcohol is freely available, like say in New Mexico where I grew up, where I can buy anything 180 proof or lower in a gas station convenience store. Perhaps, they might be able to sell Everclear as well, but I'm not sure... it typically doesn't sell often enough to make it worth it.
My suggestion is not to get rid of laws so the people who break those laws will no longer be criminals, I'm saying that by criminalizing the behavior, you've made the behavior even more dangerous than it would be were it not criminalized.
So, again, none of the laws I'm preaching about pertain to any vices of mine. Neither do I think that all laws should be removed. I'm arguing that vices and moralities shouldn't be made illegal, because they're vices precisely because people will do them even though there is a perceived negative consequence.
Anytime you have something that people are willing to do, even if there is a hefty penalty, and you make it illegal they will still do it... just now they have no protection against exploitation. For murderers? Go ahead, they deserve it. Rapists, Thieves, and Abusive individuals, go ahead, they deserve it.
But how does it make sense that sex is the only thing you can give away free, but you cannot sell. Or breasts are the only thing you're not allowed to show legally, unless you're protesting that you can't show them legally (otherwise). Or Mexicans are treated like they're worthless drains on the society, when New Mexico's Hispanics are some of the most wealthy individuals in that state?
It's all because YOU don't like the behavior, that you find it offensive, and you don't think people should do it. In other words, you think that the world revolves around you, (case in point: "My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.")
People didn't like blacks, and so passed laws to keep them from voting, from being treated equally, and even preventing white people from marrying black people. New age, new enemy, new discrimination.
There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority. You acquired a majority of your beliefs simply because you believed what somebody told you. I highly doubt you've verified for yourself (through direct observation and/or mathematical proofs) that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.
Actually, I have taken the mathematical proof to consider that the Earth orbits the Sun (that or the Sun orbits the Earth, and the other plants follow really SCREWY patterns in space... much simpler to explain as the Earth orbits around the Sun.)
The knowledge that protons neutrons and electrons are involved in atoms is verified by experiments, and results that produce the expected results. This is why I believe in Quantum Tunneling... if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't have these wonderful things we're typing into.
I am actually a skeptic of all incoming information, and if you bothered to look up Einstein's history, you would find that be was the same way. I presume that all new information is false if it conflicts with my model of the world. Once such information is validated to me, I adapt my model of the world, and continue on. I allow no information in that is contradictory or contrary to earlier information unless it can be shown that my earlier information were incorrect or incomplete.
Example, one of my friends told me about scientists using very powerful magnets to levitate plastic die, and even a living frog. I scoffed at the idea, and dismissed it, noting that neither contains any ferrous material to allow it to be levitated by magnetic force. He pointed out to me that all atoms have dipole moments, and that even non-ferrous materials, when exposed to sufficiently strong magnetic fields will results in dipole moments lining up more often than not, and produce a living frog that responds to magnetic fields.
Next example, I was watch Mythbusters, the plane on a conveyor belt. My first reaction was "it doesn't matter what the ground speed it, it matters what the airspeed is... if the plane isn't moving, then it won't take off." Once they did experiments to show it did, I noted, "my information was incomplete. The airspeed is the thing that matters, not ground speed, that's correct. But the plane pushes AIR not the ground, and so it is able to accelerate and take off regardless of the motion of the ground below it.":) If you're not a skeptic, and you don't critically analyze all information, then you're implicitly relying upon the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Part of contributing to Wikipedia is that you're anonymous...
This is also the biggest problem with wikipedia, and a good reason never to trust anything you find there. There have been several scandals on wikipedia of information being modified by interested parties - I would link to wikipedia, but I don't think they have a page about that.
In future most knowledge databases will be attributed, like Knol, because that leads to accountability, which leads to accuracy.
The Wisdom of the Crowd. It's why democracy generally works, and it's why if you have 1000 people guess how many jelly beans are in a jar you'll end up with 1000 different answers, whose average actually is likely within 2 or 4 beans of the actual amount.
Hardly. Your IP is logged in history of changes to articles anyway.
You may as well get an account, if you're going to do some real editing.
And not vandalism!!
I do have an account, precisely to avoid logging my IP into history logs.
However, my pseudonym is attached to that personality, and I can't use that pseudonym elsewhere unless I wish to link the two ideas together. Guess what? I use at least two pseudonyms.:)
So the end result is that Google still has articles from authors X and Y, whilst Wikipedia has an article dominated by X, the one supported by reliable references. How is Google's way better again?
I agree that Y will whine that his shoddy edits got reverted, and the Register will whine about it, but I don't see that's a problem with Wikipedia...
Interesting idea... I foresee that people will be whining and complaining that their article is receiving poor ratings because their opponents want to dismiss their arguments.:)
Everything has a problem, and people will always come up with a way to cry about XY when it's not going in their favor.
Some people don't have a sense of humor in some cases, so relax. I've found that the majority of information available on the subjects I care about on Wikipedia are accurate and insightful.
Another time I was Author Y, Author X had written an article using popular websites and popular reference works as his sources, all which contain substantial misinformation. (Not maliciously mind you, merely the subject is esoteric even among those studying the wider related field.) Along I come and haul out my professional references and start correcting the article - I was nearly banned over that one because 'he could prove his sources with a Google Search' and I could not. Along we come years later when Wikipedia allows, nay makes a fetish of, footnotes and sources... And the article is carefully footnoted to those popular websites and popular books. Once again, along I come and try to fix the article with careful footnotes to the proper reference works... And again my work is in vain because the reference works I use are scarce and expensive - while the ones he uses can be found on the shelf at Barnes and Noble, and match what can be found on the web.
Blame the resources not the author. If someone relies upon bad references, then he'll get bad information... guess what's more likely to get out with Knol?
Beating out common-misperception is difficult not just on a wiki, but in life in general. I know a number of areas of knowledge a lot better than the average public, and the public holds opinions and knee-jerk attitudes that are ENTIRELY off base, and disconnected with reality.
However, get a person willing to put his ethos on the line to say that, "The single most common form of marriage in the world is a man and woman", you now have a reference point, and a source... after that more people keep quoting it, all the while the sociologists and anthropologists of the world are going "dude, wtf? it's polygamy that's the most common marriage, not this one man, one woman thing."
That's where I see Knol's problem lying. While wikipedia suffers from general misperception (fortunately, a lot of articles manage to get past the largest amount of misperception) Knol suffers from over reliance on ethos. Who cares who wrote article XY... if the material stands for itself, the qualifications of the individual adding the information don't matter.
Hell, bitch, I knew you were making shit up when you suggested the way to deal with criminals is to get rid of laws.
No, my suggestion is to get rid of exploitation, by getting rid of laws imposing morality. Prostitution, Drugs, and Alcohol are the big three in that area.
I'm dead serious about that. You're just making shit up when you just flatly state these "factoids" like they have some credible evidence behind them.
having inserted a completely fake article into wikipedia and having had it edited multiple times with even more crap and having it last for over 4 years before some uber admin figured out the article was a steaming heap of garbage from the beginning, its a lot easier to get a biased piece of crap into wikipedia than you think. subtle errors can be put into wikipedia more easily than you think. and are extremely hard to catch after 50-60 people have edited it.
The same can be said for any encyclopedia, or "trusted" source of information. See: "Steinlaus":)
In fact, browsing very briefly through knol, it seems more like about.com than wikipedia.
Half of about.com seems to be an immediately copied version of wikipedia. I found one article that was pretty much exactly word for word, changed the text slightly, and POW! there's my change on about.com.
Right... that's why Conservapedia got started, because all those people with the religious right-wing nutso axes to grind found Wikipedia such a hospitable environment...
I like the "anonymity" on Wikipedia, and I don't think this Knol can measure up, simply because of that reason.
With Wiki you don't know if the author knows anything about the subject whereas with Knol you can see the author's qualifications.
Right, but why rely upon ethos for evaluating the correctness of an article? Are we really going to jump into the fallacy of appeal to authority so quickly?
By contrast, on Wikipedia, Author X's content will dominate the article while Author Y gets into a massive edit war, is banned, and runs off to spin some yarn to The Register about how he's persecuted by The Cabal. Then Wikipedia's image is tarnished.
At least Wikipedia has good information then. I don't see the problem.
Part of contributing to Wikipedia is that you're anonymous... would you really want someone to know that despite being a huge football fan, you also knew about My Little Pony?
I like the "anonymity" on Wikipedia, and I don't think this Knol can measure up, simply because of that reason.
And, what of the fact that those that abuse drugs are often endanger others, incapable of doing their jobs,and often become criminals when they can no longer support their habit by legal means?
What you, in your simplistic world view, fail to see is the act destroys the person and makes him a bane on society. My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.
Wow... barbaric... "My money shouldn't help people, it should rather just kill them".
I agree, why does my tax money go for orphans? Let's just kill them instead.
Heck, why do I pay any taxes so that you can drive on our roads? I think it would be better spent on killing you, then you wouldn't need the roads, and I'd be safe.
Then, you have the perfect solution to the crime problem: abolish all laws. Then, there will be no crime and no criminals.
Of course, there will be nothing to protect people like you from people like me.
I'm not vouching for abolishing all laws. Murder deserves to be illegal, as does theft, rape, assault, etc. These are true transgressions upon another person's rights.
Legislating morality is the problem I have. In this case, the law itself is transgressing upon the person's rights. The acts constitute no damage to anyone but themselves, yet we still insist it be illegal.
Note the difference here though... drinking alcohol, shouldn't be illegal, however drinking while driving is a high risk action that risks other's lives. Enforce that like crazy from the money that we saved from not holding everyone's hand trying to get them to not do it in the first place.
Article 1, Section 6: They [Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The text I emboldened specifically deals with the topic that I stated... the executive cannot detain a legislator... otherwise, an executive, *cough* BUSH *cough* couldn't detain a legislative member while that legislature was in session. So, he can't hold someone for a speeding ticket, when they intend to be at the Senate giving a filibuster to stop XY bill that he wants to see pass.
There has to be damn-good reason for detaining a legislator while they are in session. Otherwise, you're not protecting democracy, because during some voting for a bill, like say, a bill voting Bush into being King for Life, he can't just jail everyone who wouldn't vote for it.
As for the last sentence, I suppose there is a question as to the exact meaning (stupid 200-year old English) although I will grant you that traditionally it's held to be that what a legislator does in the commission of his duties as a legislator cannot be used legally against him.
Well, there was a time when only The Simpson's were on, and Family Guy wasn't on... note, the quote is definitely from an older episode. (From a Krusty Burger on an Oil Rig, I recall)
Family Guy? Pfff... we'll just see you get through my impenetrable fort, and then I might discuss with you the cinematic value of the second chicken battle vs the first one.
I notice he said "drug crime" and not "crime used to fund drug purchases" or "drug use related crime".
There is a big difference between the two.
Exactly. But since the drugs were no longer illegal, the dealers can't exploit the market. (Captive consumers by addiction + illegality = they'll do anything to get it)
How much "crime used to fund alcohol purchases" is there in the US? Not nearly as much as for other drugs. (It's cheap enough that you can go donate blood and use the money to buy less alcohol than you would have needed before hand.)
Again, illegality of the product has resulted in a situation where the producers can exploit the consumers, because the consumers have nowhere to seek protection against exploitation.
Fail. Something becomes illegal because those who make the laws believe it is wrong. By definition, something that is illegal is wrong where it is illegal. You may as well say "If we legalize rape, there will be no more rapists."
No... there will simply not be anymore CRIMINAL rapists.
I had a SP (I think it is) come into one of my German classes, and he was talking about the Netherlands, and them making pot legal. Someone asked him, "did crime go down?"
His response was, "well, drug crime disappeared."
And the illegal immigrants STILL want to come here, because even after being exploited, it's a better deal for them than what they have back there. We're just hurting ourselves by not giving them a level playing field. If they could complain and report employers then they could be exploited less, on the same level that we get exploited, and as a result, it's not a win-win situation for the company to hire illegals. Suddenly, now they have to pay the exact same to illegals as to legals, so why hire illegals then?
Slashdot Mirror
Mutilated cattle may be an entirely different phenomenon than aliens (see el chupacabra, for instance, for a weirder, but alternate explanation), but as far as anally-probed people -- well, again, if you were going to anally probe people, would you anally probe the President or some celebrity or would you pick some poor schmuck whom no one is ever going to believe?
Just a question, but wouldn't it be "la chupacabra"... I looked that the Spanish Wikipedia article but it looks like they keep using "el Chupacabras", and at least once use "los Chupacabras"... I figure, there's no real way to tell. >_
Seriously, for such an advanced species, they make very little sense.
Not if you watch Star Trek. Don't you know the prime directive? They're forbidden from actually interacting with us, because we're not ready for their technology yet.
WE need to get back to interstellar travel before Xenu the XXXXXIVI will let us back into the Federation. Oh and get rid of all our thetons...
Yeah that's true, I used to love watching the Simpsons. Then Family Guy, Futurama...
Then TV became too boring to entertain me, and I started going to video game cons, and building guitar amplifiers. (Building guitar amps == "WARNING: HIGH VOLTAGES, DANGEROUS, NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE, YOU WILL DIE" hmm ok I'll just build my own *700V on the plates instead of 300V* ... I've got to be pining for a darwin award or something)
0.0 yeah... I think so. Does yours go to 11?
a.) I don't do any illegal recreational drugs
b.) I don't prostitute myself
c.) I am a born American citizen
d.) I do, yes, drink
So... I don't want my vices to be illegal. And why should vices be illegal anyways? Isn't being arrogant a vice? Should that be illegal?
On the other hand, I think alcohol should be less controlled... I don't drink and drive, so I'm happily ready to make it punishable with even higher fines and penalties. I just like it when Alcohol is freely available, like say in New Mexico where I grew up, where I can buy anything 180 proof or lower in a gas station convenience store. Perhaps, they might be able to sell Everclear as well, but I'm not sure... it typically doesn't sell often enough to make it worth it.
My suggestion is not to get rid of laws so the people who break those laws will no longer be criminals, I'm saying that by criminalizing the behavior, you've made the behavior even more dangerous than it would be were it not criminalized.
So, again, none of the laws I'm preaching about pertain to any vices of mine. Neither do I think that all laws should be removed. I'm arguing that vices and moralities shouldn't be made illegal, because they're vices precisely because people will do them even though there is a perceived negative consequence.
Anytime you have something that people are willing to do, even if there is a hefty penalty, and you make it illegal they will still do it... just now they have no protection against exploitation. For murderers? Go ahead, they deserve it. Rapists, Thieves, and Abusive individuals, go ahead, they deserve it.
But how does it make sense that sex is the only thing you can give away free, but you cannot sell. Or breasts are the only thing you're not allowed to show legally, unless you're protesting that you can't show them legally (otherwise). Or Mexicans are treated like they're worthless drains on the society, when New Mexico's Hispanics are some of the most wealthy individuals in that state?
It's all because YOU don't like the behavior, that you find it offensive, and you don't think people should do it. In other words, you think that the world revolves around you, (case in point: "My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.")
People didn't like blacks, and so passed laws to keep them from voting, from being treated equally, and even preventing white people from marrying black people. New age, new enemy, new discrimination.
There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority. You acquired a majority of your beliefs simply because you believed what somebody told you. I highly doubt you've verified for yourself (through direct observation and/or mathematical proofs) that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.
Actually, I have taken the mathematical proof to consider that the Earth orbits the Sun (that or the Sun orbits the Earth, and the other plants follow really SCREWY patterns in space... much simpler to explain as the Earth orbits around the Sun.)
The knowledge that protons neutrons and electrons are involved in atoms is verified by experiments, and results that produce the expected results. This is why I believe in Quantum Tunneling... if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't have these wonderful things we're typing into.
I am actually a skeptic of all incoming information, and if you bothered to look up Einstein's history, you would find that be was the same way. I presume that all new information is false if it conflicts with my model of the world. Once such information is validated to me, I adapt my model of the world, and continue on. I allow no information in that is contradictory or contrary to earlier information unless it can be shown that my earlier information were incorrect or incomplete.
Example, one of my friends told me about scientists using very powerful magnets to levitate plastic die, and even a living frog. I scoffed at the idea, and dismissed it, noting that neither contains any ferrous material to allow it to be levitated by magnetic force. He pointed out to me that all atoms have dipole moments, and that even non-ferrous materials, when exposed to sufficiently strong magnetic fields will results in dipole moments lining up more often than not, and produce a living frog that responds to magnetic fields.
Next example, I was watch Mythbusters, the plane on a conveyor belt. My first reaction was "it doesn't matter what the ground speed it, it matters what the airspeed is... if the plane isn't moving, then it won't take off." Once they did experiments to show it did, I noted, "my information was incomplete. The airspeed is the thing that matters, not ground speed, that's correct. But the plane pushes AIR not the ground, and so it is able to accelerate and take off regardless of the motion of the ground below it." :) If you're not a skeptic, and you don't critically analyze all information, then you're implicitly relying upon the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Part of contributing to Wikipedia is that you're anonymous...
This is also the biggest problem with wikipedia, and a good reason never to trust anything you find there. There have been several scandals on wikipedia of information being modified by interested parties - I would link to wikipedia, but I don't think they have a page about that.
In future most knowledge databases will be attributed, like Knol, because that leads to accountability, which leads to accuracy.
The Wisdom of the Crowd. It's why democracy generally works, and it's why if you have 1000 people guess how many jelly beans are in a jar you'll end up with 1000 different answers, whose average actually is likely within 2 or 4 beans of the actual amount.
Hardly. Your IP is logged in history of changes to articles anyway.
You may as well get an account, if you're going to do some real editing.
And not vandalism!!
I do have an account, precisely to avoid logging my IP into history logs.
However, my pseudonym is attached to that personality, and I can't use that pseudonym elsewhere unless I wish to link the two ideas together. Guess what? I use at least two pseudonyms. :)
So the end result is that Google still has articles from authors X and Y, whilst Wikipedia has an article dominated by X, the one supported by reliable references. How is Google's way better again?
I agree that Y will whine that his shoddy edits got reverted, and the Register will whine about it, but I don't see that's a problem with Wikipedia...
Interesting idea... I foresee that people will be whining and complaining that their article is receiving poor ratings because their opponents want to dismiss their arguments. :)
Everything has a problem, and people will always come up with a way to cry about XY when it's not going in their favor.
And what do you think Knol's article on San Serriffe will be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Serriffe
Sometimes, hoaxes are notable enough to be articles themselves. As well, recall the policy No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.
Some people don't have a sense of humor in some cases, so relax. I've found that the majority of information available on the subjects I care about on Wikipedia are accurate and insightful.
Another time I was Author Y, Author X had written an article using popular websites and popular reference works as his sources, all which contain substantial misinformation. (Not maliciously mind you, merely the subject is esoteric even among those studying the wider related field.) Along I come and haul out my professional references and start correcting the article - I was nearly banned over that one because 'he could prove his sources with a Google Search' and I could not. Along we come years later when Wikipedia allows, nay makes a fetish of, footnotes and sources... And the article is carefully footnoted to those popular websites and popular books. Once again, along I come and try to fix the article with careful footnotes to the proper reference works... And again my work is in vain because the reference works I use are scarce and expensive - while the ones he uses can be found on the shelf at Barnes and Noble, and match what can be found on the web.
Blame the resources not the author. If someone relies upon bad references, then he'll get bad information... guess what's more likely to get out with Knol?
Beating out common-misperception is difficult not just on a wiki, but in life in general. I know a number of areas of knowledge a lot better than the average public, and the public holds opinions and knee-jerk attitudes that are ENTIRELY off base, and disconnected with reality.
However, get a person willing to put his ethos on the line to say that, "The single most common form of marriage in the world is a man and woman", you now have a reference point, and a source... after that more people keep quoting it, all the while the sociologists and anthropologists of the world are going "dude, wtf? it's polygamy that's the most common marriage, not this one man, one woman thing."
That's where I see Knol's problem lying. While wikipedia suffers from general misperception (fortunately, a lot of articles manage to get past the largest amount of misperception) Knol suffers from over reliance on ethos. Who cares who wrote article XY... if the material stands for itself, the qualifications of the individual adding the information don't matter.
Hell, bitch, I knew you were making shit up when you suggested the way to deal with criminals is to get rid of laws.
No, my suggestion is to get rid of exploitation, by getting rid of laws imposing morality. Prostitution, Drugs, and Alcohol are the big three in that area.
I'm dead serious about that. You're just making shit up when you just flatly state these "factoids" like they have some credible evidence behind them.
having inserted a completely fake article into wikipedia and having had it edited multiple times with even more crap and having it last for over 4 years before some uber admin figured out the article was a steaming heap of garbage from the beginning, its a lot easier to get a biased piece of crap into wikipedia than you think.
subtle errors can be put into wikipedia more easily than you think. and are extremely hard to catch after 50-60 people have edited it.
The same can be said for any encyclopedia, or "trusted" source of information. See: "Steinlaus" :)
In fact, browsing very briefly through knol, it seems more like about.com than wikipedia.
Half of about.com seems to be an immediately copied version of wikipedia. I found one article that was pretty much exactly word for word, changed the text slightly, and POW! there's my change on about.com.
Right... that's why Conservapedia got started, because all those people with the religious right-wing nutso axes to grind found Wikipedia such a hospitable environment...
Rehab does not help criminals. They just go back to drugs when they get out.
Please quote your sources...
"Aliens don't help children. They just turn back to going hyper once the spaceship takes off."
See? I can make shit up, too!
I like the "anonymity" on Wikipedia, and I don't think this Knol can measure up, simply because of that reason.
With Wiki you don't know if the author knows anything about the subject whereas with Knol you can see the author's qualifications.
Right, but why rely upon ethos for evaluating the correctness of an article? Are we really going to jump into the fallacy of appeal to authority so quickly?
By contrast, on Wikipedia, Author X's content will dominate the article while Author Y gets into a massive edit war, is banned, and runs off to spin some yarn to The Register about how he's persecuted by The Cabal. Then Wikipedia's image is tarnished.
At least Wikipedia has good information then. I don't see the problem.
Part of contributing to Wikipedia is that you're anonymous... would you really want someone to know that despite being a huge football fan, you also knew about My Little Pony?
I like the "anonymity" on Wikipedia, and I don't think this Knol can measure up, simply because of that reason.
And, what of the fact that those that abuse drugs are often endanger others, incapable of doing their jobs,and often become criminals when they can no longer support their habit by legal means?
What you, in your simplistic world view, fail to see is the act destroys the person and makes him a bane on society. My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.
Wow... barbaric... "My money shouldn't help people, it should rather just kill them".
I agree, why does my tax money go for orphans? Let's just kill them instead.
Heck, why do I pay any taxes so that you can drive on our roads? I think it would be better spent on killing you, then you wouldn't need the roads, and I'd be safe.
Then, you have the perfect solution to the crime problem: abolish all laws. Then, there will be no crime and no criminals.
Of course, there will be nothing to protect people like you from people like me.
I'm not vouching for abolishing all laws. Murder deserves to be illegal, as does theft, rape, assault, etc. These are true transgressions upon another person's rights.
Legislating morality is the problem I have. In this case, the law itself is transgressing upon the person's rights. The acts constitute no damage to anyone but themselves, yet we still insist it be illegal.
Note the difference here though... drinking alcohol, shouldn't be illegal, however drinking while driving is a high risk action that risks other's lives. Enforce that like crazy from the money that we saved from not holding everyone's hand trying to get them to not do it in the first place.
Article 1, Section 6: They [Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The text I emboldened specifically deals with the topic that I stated... the executive cannot detain a legislator... otherwise, an executive, *cough* BUSH *cough* couldn't detain a legislative member while that legislature was in session. So, he can't hold someone for a speeding ticket, when they intend to be at the Senate giving a filibuster to stop XY bill that he wants to see pass.
There has to be damn-good reason for detaining a legislator while they are in session. Otherwise, you're not protecting democracy, because during some voting for a bill, like say, a bill voting Bush into being King for Life, he can't just jail everyone who wouldn't vote for it.
As for the last sentence, I suppose there is a question as to the exact meaning (stupid 200-year old English) although I will grant you that traditionally it's held to be that what a legislator does in the commission of his duties as a legislator cannot be used legally against him.
Well, there was a time when only The Simpson's were on, and Family Guy wasn't on... note, the quote is definitely from an older episode. (From a Krusty Burger on an Oil Rig, I recall)
Family Guy? Pfff... we'll just see you get through my impenetrable fort, and then I might discuss with you the cinematic value of the second chicken battle vs the first one.
I notice he said "drug crime" and not "crime used to fund drug purchases" or "drug use related crime".
There is a big difference between the two.
Exactly. But since the drugs were no longer illegal, the dealers can't exploit the market. (Captive consumers by addiction + illegality = they'll do anything to get it)
How much "crime used to fund alcohol purchases" is there in the US? Not nearly as much as for other drugs. (It's cheap enough that you can go donate blood and use the money to buy less alcohol than you would have needed before hand.)
Again, illegality of the product has resulted in a situation where the producers can exploit the consumers, because the consumers have nowhere to seek protection against exploitation.
*blink blink*
Homer: "Can't talk... eating..."
Fail. Something becomes illegal because those who make the laws believe it is wrong. By definition, something that is illegal is wrong where it is illegal. You may as well say "If we legalize rape, there will be no more rapists."
No... there will simply not be anymore CRIMINAL rapists.
I had a SP (I think it is) come into one of my German classes, and he was talking about the Netherlands, and them making pot legal. Someone asked him, "did crime go down?"
His response was, "well, drug crime disappeared."
And the illegal immigrants STILL want to come here, because even after being exploited, it's a better deal for them than what they have back there. We're just hurting ourselves by not giving them a level playing field. If they could complain and report employers then they could be exploited less, on the same level that we get exploited, and as a result, it's not a win-win situation for the company to hire illegals. Suddenly, now they have to pay the exact same to illegals as to legals, so why hire illegals then?