Satanic Substances Hijack People's Souls

[Diogenes]

Is there a reason that the entire Talk-Polywell forum is continually manipulated into these childish, banal and trite discussions of drug use, except that the moderator is a drug abuser?

Simon, why is it acceptable for you to foist your obviously and stupidly wrong views on everyone in this forum? Why is it okay for someone who continually demonstrates no moral compass, to tell everyone here they should have no compass?

Can't you go find a child to steal candy from, or a small animal to abuse?

I believe Simon is a moral person, he just has a Libertarian view of morality. I am quite familiar with the mindset, and confront it quite a lot, but I think it is incorrect to say he has no moral compass. It just skews to the left on social issues a little.

[williatw]

"ad hominem" is a fallacy when it forms an attack on a person rather than go to the issue at hand, but the fact Simon is morally bankrupt is the issue at hand, so it's not a fallacy. It's recognition of the fact the issue of drug abuse is a moral one. When someone is so obviously and stupidly wrong that they can't see what a fantastic evil drugs represent, they need to be told they have no moral compass. And this is indeed what happens when people ignore their conscience continually--it becomes unable to function properly. Likewise, when people think only about how we're supposed to be open minded and fair in discussions, and don't realize that their conscience requires moral judgements at times, they become like you, unable to call evil, "evil".

Tell me, if you knew that Simon earned a living selling drugs to children, would it be easier for you to call that "evil"? If so, why is it okay for him to promulgate all the same sorts of arguments for drug use here, that one would use to sell drugs on a school-ground to children?

And yeah, looks like the cannibals are druggies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/0 ... d=webmail8

Do the people in the United States who support the current "war on drugs" which has cost on the order of 50K lives in Mexico have no moral compass? Why no, because those people are just sacrificed to fight the evil of drug use, no sacrifice to great and all that. Do you think for a moment if those 50K were white americans we would continue the war on drugs? How about we legalize and strictly regulate the harder drugs, while treating drug addiction like the medical condition it is and treat it as such? How about we use education/social censure against use like we do with smoking and alcohol? Drive and destroy the cartels who make billions off of human misery out of business by driving down the cost of their drugs and depriving them of their market. Why exactly is that morally bankrupt?

[Diogenes]

"
And yeah, looks like the cannibals are druggies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/0 ... d=webmail8

I am SHOCKED ! SHOCKED I tell you!







edited to restore image.

[Diogenes]

"ad hominem" is a fallacy when it forms an attack on a person rather than go to the issue at hand, but the fact Simon is morally bankrupt is the issue at hand, so it's not a fallacy. It's recognition of the fact the issue of drug abuse is a moral one. When someone is so obviously and stupidly wrong that they can't see what a fantastic evil drugs represent, they need to be told they have no moral compass. And this is indeed what happens when people ignore their conscience continually--it becomes unable to function properly. Likewise, when people think only about how we're supposed to be open minded and fair in discussions, and don't realize that their conscience requires moral judgements at times, they become like you, unable to call evil, "evil".

Tell me, if you knew that Simon earned a living selling drugs to children, would it be easier for you to call that "evil"? If so, why is it okay for him to promulgate all the same sorts of arguments for drug use here, that one would use to sell drugs on a school-ground to children?

And yeah, looks like the cannibals are druggies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/0 ... d=webmail8

Do the people in the United States who support the current "war on drugs" which has cost on the order of 50K lives in Mexico have no moral compass? Why no, because those people are just sacrificed to fight the evil of drug use, no sacrifice to great and all that. Do you think for a moment if those 50K were white americans we would continue the war on drugs? How about we legalize and strictly regulate the harder drugs, while treating drug addiction like the medical condition it is and treat it as such? How about we use education/social censure against use like we do with smoking and alcohol? Drive and destroy the cartels who make billions off of human misery out of business by driving down the cost of their drugs and depriving them of their market. Why exactly is that morally bankrupt?

50K? We kill over 75K per year from Alcohol. I guess numbers really aren't your strong suit. None of you on the other side of this issue ever bother to wonder how many deaths would occur from legalizing drugs.

Again, with China as the only real world example of what happens when you legalize a dangerous narcotic, Millions of deaths per year would not be an unreasonable guess. If you postulate that China's weakness (as a result of the drug scourge they went through) is the primary cause for the Japanese invasion, and the subsequent takeover of the nation by a Dictator, then the costs of legalized drugs in China reaches well over 100 Million.

You apparently do not have the capacity to envision a down side to your theory.

[williatw]

50K? We kill over 75K per year from Alcohol. I guess numbers really aren't your strong suit. None of you on the other side of this issue ever bother to wonder how many deaths would occur from legalizing drugs.

Again, with China as the only real world example of what happens when you legalize a dangerous narcotic, Millions of deaths per year would not be an unreasonable guess. If you postulate that China's weakness (as a result of the drug scourge they went through) is the primary cause for the Japanese invasion, and the subsequent takeover of the nation by a Dictator, then the costs of legalized drugs in China reaches well over 100 Million.

You apparently do not have the capacity to envision a down side to your theory.

Yeah sure the war on drugs is the lesser of the two evils, especially if the 50K killed are Mexicans and the ones in the US killed/jailed are mostly poor non-whites. Doubt if most Mexicans would agree that the current policy is the "lesser evil" but luckily they can't vote in US elections, so doesn't matter what they think. The best solution for the "75K" you say are killed by alcohol is treatment of the disease of alcoholism, not jailing people or letting people murder each other to get/control the sell of booze. You are free to postulate whatever you want about china, the fact is Mao eventually killed far more chinese than the opium did, the other side of the coin of what inevitably happens when you trade liberty for "security".

[GIThruster]

the fact Simon is morally bankrupt is the issue at hand

A ridiculous assertion, but carry on, let's see how you can make that pig fly.

Honestly I think mere observation ought to be enough for anyone with an open mind to determine that drugs are one of the greatest evils on the planet. Simon is a druggie and so he posts continually about drugs--he's obsessed with the need to argue his case. Somehow he thinks he's going to convince people who know better of his nonsense that prohibition is the problem. That's obviously and stupidly wrong and anyone who does not isolate themselves from the horrible effects of drugs knows this.

Spend any time in the seedy parts of town where you never go, for fear of your safety, and you'll find the true effects of drugs. There's no prohibition there. Anyone can find drugs if they go to the right place. That hooker who looks like an army walked all over her face used to be pretty once. She' not that old but she's been using for almost a decade. Her life is about spent now and since her looks are gone, she'll blow you and frick you--what she calls a "half and half" for a mere $20. If she could get more, she'd ask for more but she knows she can't.

That guy on the curb. . .he was an all-star fullback in high school. He had plans to join the Air Patrol and eventually attend the Air Force Academy, maybe become an astronaut one day, until he started smoking dope and all the ambition left him. Now all he cares about is his next high, preferably the expensive stuff if he can steal it. The entire notion of responsibility has become foreign to him and he couldn't care less that he's degenerated to panhandling and the sporadic mugging.

I know. I was there. I met these people and hundreds of others over the course of years. In my youth, from 12-18 I used too, so I can sympathize, but I also know that Simon is full of shit in almost every post he makes when arguing that prohibition is the problem.

People being what they are, liberty needs to have some restraints. Some things have such a fantastically evil result that they can't be legal. Prostitution is one. It so dehumanizes those who allow it that it cannot be permitted in any civilized society. People can lie to themselves about it as much as they like, but after you spend some time talking with some prostitutes, you know that the practice is dehumanizing because you can see for yourself its effects. People who have never spoken with a street prostitute can keep their silly, pathetic libertarian judgements to themselves. Go meet the people doing this kind of stuff and then share with us what you've learned.

Same with drugs. Just because Simon says he and his family have survived their criminal behavior over decades does not make that a recommend for reasonable behavior. He's a criminal, continually engaging in criminal activity and justifying it to himself and those around him. The fact he's chosen to participate in daily criminal behavior for years disqualifies him as able to speak to the issue with an intact conscience. He is reprobate, and deliberately ignorant of the dictates of his own, seared conscience. His despicable conduct in this forum is proof enough that even very bright people, can be moral morons.

[williatw]

the fact Simon is morally bankrupt is the issue at hand

A ridiculous assertion, but carry on, let's see how you can make that pig fly.

Honestly I think mere observation ought to be enough for anyone with an open mind to determine that drugs are one of the greatest evils on the planet. Simon is a druggie and so he posts continually about drugs--he's obsessed with the need to argue his case. Somehow he thinks he's going to convince people who know better of his nonsense that prohibition is the problem. That's obviously and stupidly wrong and anyone who does not isolate themselves from the horrible effects of drugs knows this.

Spend any time in the seedy parts of town where you never go, for fear of your safety, and you'll find the true effects of drugs. There's no prohibition there. Anyone can find drugs if they go to the right place. That hooker who looks like an army walked all over her face used to be pretty once. She' not that old but she's been using for almost a decade. Her life is about spent now and since her looks are gone, she'll blow you and frick you--what she calls a "half and half" for a mere $20. If she could get more, she'd ask for more but she knows she can't.

That guy on the curb. . .he was an all-star fullback in high school. He had plans to join the Air Patrol and eventually attend the Air Force Academy, maybe become an astronaut one day, until he started smoking dope and all the ambition left him. Now all he cares about is his next high, preferably the expensive stuff if he can steal it. The entire notion of responsibility has become foreign to him and he couldn't care less that he's degenerated to panhandling and the sporadic mugging.

I know. I was there. I met these people and hundreds of others over the course of years. In my youth, from 12-18 I used too, so I can sympathize, but I also know that Simon is full of shit in almost every post he makes when arguing that prohibition is the problem.

People being what they are, liberty needs to have some restraints. Some things have such a fantastically evil result that they can't be legal. Prostitution is one. It so dehumanizes those who allow it that it cannot be permitted in any civilized society. People can lie to themselves about it as much as they like, but after you spend some time talking with some prostitutes, you know that the practice is dehumanizing because you can see for yourself its effects. People who have never spoken with a street prostitute can keep their silly, pathetic libertarian judgements to themselves. Go meet the people doing this kind of stuff and then share with us what you've learned.

Same with drugs. Just because Simon says he and his family have survived their criminal behavior over decades does not make that a recommend for reasonable behavior. He's a criminal, continually engaging in criminal activity and justifying it to himself and those around him. The fact he's chosen to participate in daily criminal behavior for years disqualifies him as able to speak to the issue with an intact conscience. He is reprobate, and deliberately ignorant of the dictates of his own, seared conscience. His despicable conduct in this forum is proof enough that even very bright people, can be moral morons.

I unfortunately grew up in a neighborhood like those you describe. I don't think drugs are "harmless" by any means. The horrors that you describe are the results of decades of our current policies is it not? At best it is a failure of those policies at worse the result of those policies. How do you see that as an endorsement of staying the course and let’s keep doing what we are doing now? The belief that if we legalized and strictly regulated it would what make it worse? Based on what experience would you come to that conclusion? The prostitute/athlete who has to sell themselves/steal to get money because the drugs are insanely expensive and addictive. He is a criminal in the eyes of the law and is treated as such, not someone suffering from the disease of addiction. The drugs are not regulated and controlled in any way. I drink legal beer Michelob amber bock, go through about a 12pack a month. What if it were illegal and my supplier could spike up the booze content or add anything to it he wished(like opium/codeine whatever) without my knowledge? Why in no time I and others would be hopeless addicts. Alcohol(and for that matter nicotine) are among the most addictive drugs but are people driven to seek out illegal booze with much higher alcohol content where alcohol is cheap and legal? No. I believe consumption of hard liquor(and smoking) has been on the decline for decades, the repeal of prohibition did not lead to the alcohol equivalent of "the chest of opium coming into the country in ever greater amounts"

[Betruger]

moral morons.

I'm not reading your posts for a while. Good luck with the argument.

[Diogenes]

moral morons.

I'm not reading your posts for a while. Good luck with the argument.

I am developing that inclination for a lots of posters on this forum.

[palladin9479]

Simon is as much as "druggy" as myself. Considering my job requires that we do not use any prohibited substances, and they do regular screenings, it's a safe bet that I'm not a user of illegal drugs. As for the drugs of the legal variety, I'm known to use Methylcarbinol most weekends.

Simon wants the same thing as me, to not have people making personal decisions for me. No matter how good the cause, you can not go around making decisions "for peoples own good", that leads down a dark dark road that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Il Sung and many others have walked. It opens up too many doors that should be closed and paves the way for an authoritarian state where the people work for the state, rather then the state working for the people.

It may be stupid and counter productive for someone to destroy their life, ultimately it's their choice for good or bad.

[palladin9479]

For the whole "DRUGS ARE THE DEVIL!!" people.

Your confusion correlation with causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Drug usage / addiction is the symptom of a problem, it's not the problem itself. Making "drugs" illegal will no more fix the root cause then making coughing illegal would fix a cold. Repair / remove the root cause and the symptoms will go away.

Perfect case study is the Italian mafia family's during the prohibition era. Their primary source of income was selling the illegal drug Methylcarbinol in various unregulated mix's. They participated in gun fights with many causalities amongst innocent bystanders as they fought over rights to distribution. Lots of corruption and crime involved as a result of the lucrative illegal drug (Methylcarbinol ) industry.

Kinda deflates all opposition arguments.

[Diogenes]

Simon is as much as "druggy" as myself. Considering my job requires that we do not use any prohibited substances, and they do regular screenings, it's a safe bet that I'm not a user of illegal drugs. As for the drugs of the legal variety, I'm known to use Methylcarbinol most weekends.

Simon wants the same thing as me, to not have people making personal decisions for me. No matter how good the cause, you can not go around making decisions "for peoples own good", that leads down a dark dark road that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Il Sung and many others have walked. It opens up too many doors that should be closed and paves the way for an authoritarian state where the people work for the state, rather then the state working for the people.

It may be stupid and counter productive for someone to destroy their life, ultimately it's their choice for good or bad.

It is the illusion that drug usage only affects the person who engages in it that is the center of the fallacious libertarian thinking on this issue. The one real world experiment where their theory was actually put into practice on a nationwide scale and for a very long duration was an absolute horror.

Why is it so difficult for Libertarians to meet face to face with reality? China was invaded by a much smaller country because it was pathetically weak. It was pathetically weak because half of it's adult male population was on opium, and they simply couldn't produce the economic activity necessary to make themselves into a nation capable of defending itself.

Mao was likely a direct consequence of the internal collapse of China's economic capabilities, and that collapse was caused by legal drugs.

[Diogenes]

For the whole "DRUGS ARE THE DEVIL!!" people.

Your confusion correlation with causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Drug usage / addiction is the symptom of a problem, it's not the problem itself. Making "drugs" illegal will no more fix the root cause then making coughing illegal would fix a cold. Repair / remove the root cause and the symptoms will go away.

Perfect case study is the Italian mafia family's during the prohibition era. Their primary source of income was selling the illegal drug Methylcarbinol in various unregulated mix's. They participated in gun fights with many causalities amongst innocent bystanders as they fought over rights to distribution. Lots of corruption and crime involved as a result of the lucrative illegal drug (Methylcarbinol ) industry.

Kinda deflates all opposition arguments.

Well since the right side "won", we've only been killing 75,000 per year. Hoorah us!

[palladin9479]

Simon is as much as "druggy" as myself. Considering my job requires that we do not use any prohibited substances, and they do regular screenings, it's a safe bet that I'm not a user of illegal drugs. As for the drugs of the legal variety, I'm known to use Methylcarbinol most weekends.

Simon wants the same thing as me, to not have people making personal decisions for me. No matter how good the cause, you can not go around making decisions "for peoples own good", that leads down a dark dark road that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Il Sung and many others have walked. It opens up too many doors that should be closed and paves the way for an authoritarian state where the people work for the state, rather then the state working for the people.

It may be stupid and counter productive for someone to destroy their life, ultimately it's their choice for good or bad.

It is the illusion that drug usage only affects the person who engages in it that is the center of the fallacious libertarian thinking on this issue. The one real world experiment where their theory was actually put into practice on a nationwide scale and for a very long duration was an absolute horror.

Why is it so difficult for Libertarians to meet face to face with reality? China was invaded by a much smaller country because it was pathetically weak. It was pathetically weak because half of it's adult male population was on opium, and they simply couldn't produce the economic activity necessary to make themselves into a nation capable of defending itself.

Mao was likely a direct consequence of the internal collapse of China's economic capabilities, and that collapse was caused by legal drugs.

Spoken like a true Marxist.

Under your logic, the butterfly that flapped it's wings in the USA that then resulted in the hurricane in Asia, should be killed. Kill all the butterfly's so that they can not flap and thus not create hurricanes.

Your breathing is effecting my life in a perceived negative way, thus you should be made to stop breathing.

Why do you hate the butterfly's so much, why are you still breathing.

[palladin9479]

Here's a better one, since your no doubt typing up a reply as we speak, and then typing up a reply to your own reply.

You feel you have the dictate to others what they should and should not do. You believe people like yourself have a natural monopoly on knowledge and wisdom and thus your in the best position to dictate to the kingdom their laws. For their own good after all. Of course it's only laws that you agree with, your own desires are exempt from these laws and you absolutely hate it when others dictate to you their beliefs.

That sounds a whole lot like dictator.

So tell us, without spending four posts and three self reply's on it, what makes you any different from all the other strumped up dictators that exist to abuse and control their populations. Let me guess, yours is somehow the "right" way, with some sort of heavenly mandate that's beyond reproach to go with it.