Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/30 ... vid-french#

Been reading Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, would this be an example of his tactics, i.e. targeting individuals?

As I haven't read it I don't know. Seems you should enlighten us.

I would note however that academia is anything but an openminded subculture. Academics always persecute those they can when strongly divided on an issue. There are more examples of this than one can count. The difference here is how out of hand UCLA allowed the situation to go before ACLJ finally stepped in.

GIThruster wrote:As I haven't read it I don't know. Seems you should enlighten us.

I would note however that academia is anything but an openminded subculture. Academics always persecute those they can when strongly divided on an issue. There are more examples of this than one can count. The difference here is how out of hand UCLA allowed the situation to go before ACLJ finally stepped in.

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

http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/s ... r-radicals

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ma-be.html

BTW the Right uses the same rules for topics it is interested in. i.e. look at all the ad homs I get when discussing drug issues. No response to my points about the science of the matter just personal attacks. I do enjoy the attacks. It shows up my opponents as brain dead. I know, I know, you can't change the mind of a Zombie. But you can influence lurkers.

I gotta ask how many lurkers you think you have turned off with your rhetoric?

I also need to point out that you tend to ignore factual data against your position. You behave like it isn't there.

Did you make your T-Shirt yet?

MSimon wrote:

GIThruster wrote:As I haven't read it I don't know. Seems you should enlighten us.

I would note however that academia is anything but an openminded subculture. Academics always persecute those they can when strongly divided on an issue. There are more examples of this than one can count. The difference here is how out of hand UCLA allowed the situation to go before ACLJ finally stepped in.

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

http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/s ... r-radicals

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ma-be.html

BTW the Right uses the same rules for topics it is interested in. i.e. look at all the ad homs I get when discussing drug issues. No response to my points about the science of the matter just personal attacks. I do enjoy the attacks. It shows up my opponents as brain dead. I know, I know, you can't change the mind of a Zombie. But you can influence lurkers.

Or they respond that they've seen no credible evidence to date, but they don't refer specifically to the ignored links. If they themselves wish to maintain credibility, they should state if this is in reference to evidence presented and how the evidence is flawed. The other evasion tactic is to post no response but start another topic.

choff wrote:If they themselves wish to maintain credibility, they should state if this is in reference to evidence presented and how the evidence is flawed.

That's nonsense. Simon is clearly an abusive poster who spends more time arguing for his point of view than anyone with a job can respond to. He's an obsessed parasite who spends all his time arguing in support of a completely untenable position. There can never be some onus to respond point by point off to some indefinite future. He's had his say and then some, had his responses and there's no reason anyone with common sense would continue to respond to him. Sensible people merely ignore him.

If Simon wants to make a sensible case for drugs, he's going to need to go out and get a job, and stop living as a parasite on the backs of others. Until he does this, none of his arguments hold water and his failed life is the best argument against drug legalization there can be.

MSimon wrote:

GIThruster wrote:As I haven't read it I don't know. Seems you should enlighten us.

I would note however that academia is anything but an openminded subculture. Academics always persecute those they can when strongly divided on an issue. There are more examples of this than one can count. The difference here is how out of hand UCLA allowed the situation to go before ACLJ finally stepped in.

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

http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/s ... r-radicals

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ma-be.html

BTW the Right uses the same rules for topics it is interested in. i.e. look at all the ad homs I get when discussing drug issues.

Motivated More by a "Not this again" mindset than anything else. Many people are just tired of hearing this topic introduced into every discussion.

MSimon wrote:
No response to my points about the science of the matter just personal attacks.

That's because many of us regard your sources of "science" as biased and agenda driven. (Like Global Warming.) You have taught me one thing. Not to bother worrying about the credibility of anything that comes from a Libertarian pro-drug legalization source.

When I quote one of your very own sources back at you (The Drug Library) saying that addiction in Manchuria was 50% by 1905, you ignore this piece of information. "à bon chat, bon rat".

MSimon wrote: I do enjoy the attacks. It shows up my opponents as brain dead. I know, I know, you can't change the mind of a Zombie. But you can influence lurkers.

You are influencing me to take a more active role in hammering down this drug legalization nonsense. You are changing my mindset from one of passive indifference to active opposition. You are making me think that people really need to be informed about what happened to China, and what happened in "Needles park", because these real world experiments prove that Libertarian drug legalization theories are completely wrong.

The biggest drug legalization experiment in History proves your side is wrong, and you talk to us about ignoring science? Experiment trumps theory every day of the week.

ladajo wrote:I gotta ask how many lurkers you think you have turned off with your rhetoric?

I also need to point out that you tend to ignore factual data against your position. You behave like it isn't there.

Did you make your T-Shirt yet? ;)

I guess I also ignore factual data supporting Alcohol Prohibition.

As to turning off lurkers? Well let us look at the numbers. Legalization is now favored by 50% in America and prohibition by 40%. A reversal from a few years ago. My guess is that my effect is net positive because my arguments here are the same ones I have been writing for a decade.

I don't hope to convert every one. Just enough to change the politics.

And the politics will change because people are starting to see that a drug problem is better than a drug + gang + terrorist problem. The same realization they came to about alcohol. Except that alcohol prohibition did not support terrorists.

Which T shirt?

GIThruster wrote:

choff wrote:If they themselves wish to maintain credibility, they should state if this is in reference to evidence presented and how the evidence is flawed.

That's nonsense. Simon is clearly an abusive poster who spends more time arguing for his point of view than anyone with a job can respond to. He's an obsessed parasite who spends all his time arguing in support of a completely untenable position. There can never be some onus to respond point by point off to some indefinite future. He's had his say and then some, had his responses and there's no reason anyone with common sense would continue to respond to him. Sensible people merely ignore him.

If Simon wants to make a sensible case for drugs, he's going to need to go out and get a job, and stop living as a parasite on the backs of others. Until he does this, none of his arguments hold water and his failed life is the best argument against drug legalization there can be.

I wasn't so much reacting to the drug legalization debate as the tactics people use in support of their debate positions, should have mentioned both left with right.
I see danger in Saul Alinsky's rules, he doen't want to recruit do-gooders, he wants to attack individuals, the ends jusify the means, and encourage your people to use tactics they like(probably attacking individuals).
That means that when he wins his conflict his no-gooders that enjoy attacking individuals are in charge, and all they really know is how to hurt people. How's that an improvement over what came before.

Nobodies going to win the drug war, not the pro legalization side, not the anti legalization side, everybodies going to lose, nature of the human condition. Anybody who thinks different is naive, eventually the banksters and politicians are going to get burned by it, they think it won't touch them but it will.

choff wrote:

GIThruster wrote:

choff wrote:If they themselves wish to maintain credibility, they should state if this is in reference to evidence presented and how the evidence is flawed.

That's nonsense. Simon is clearly an abusive poster who spends more time arguing for his point of view than anyone with a job can respond to. He's an obsessed parasite who spends all his time arguing in support of a completely untenable position. There can never be some onus to respond point by point off to some indefinite future. He's had his say and then some, had his responses and there's no reason anyone with common sense would continue to respond to him. Sensible people merely ignore him.

If Simon wants to make a sensible case for drugs, he's going to need to go out and get a job, and stop living as a parasite on the backs of others. Until he does this, none of his arguments hold water and his failed life is the best argument against drug legalization there can be.

I wasn't so much reacting to the drug legalization debate as the tactics people use in support of their debate positions, should have mentioned both left with right.
I see danger in Saul Alinsky's rules, he doen't want to recruit do-gooders, he wants to attack individuals, the ends jusify the means, and encourage your people to use tactics they like(probably attacking individuals).
That means that when he wins his conflict his no-gooders that enjoy attacking individuals are in charge, and all they really know is how to hurt people. How's that an improvement over what came before.

Nobodies going to win the drug war, not the pro legalization side, not the anti legalization side, everybodies going to lose, nature of the human condition. Anybody who thinks different is naive, eventually the banksters and politicians are going to get burned by it, they think it won't touch them but it will.

I do actually have a job. Two of them.

1. I live off my retirement income
2. I get paid for writing.

http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/

I am in the process of starting a third job.

=====

Choff,

I'm interested in your take on ending prohibition.

Was ending alcohol prohibition a losing proposition? If not why wouldn't you expect similar gains from ending drug prohibition?

Prohibition is a vector for spreading drug use.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

I don't see how a decline in drug use would not be of some benefit. I do not see how targeting crimes with direct victims wouldn't be of some benefit. Look at the decline of clearance of property crimes and murder as prohibition enforcement has increased.

No one wins?

Civilization wins and drug cartels lose. Corrupt politicians lose. Stupid people who believe in prohibitions lose (for a while).

Prohibitions are self defeating. The "better" they are enforced the more profitable the trade.

Politically I will be a loser though. The people who see the stupidity of government will decline.

Lets try this from another approach, you get on an airplane bound for your favorite destination. as you are making yourself comfortable you see a man on the wing drilling out a rivet. You don't worry and you make your flight and land safely.
Next your a frequent flier and every time you get on the plane you See a man get on the wing and remove a rivet. How long are you going to keep flying the plane before its unsafe.
This argument applies to legalization of anything. The plane is the fabric of society the man on the wing is removing a law and your the passenger.

You can very easily make the argument that smoking pot is less harmful than drinking but because it is less harmful do we need to get rid of it? It is but one more law of society that we have and helps hold everything together. Remove enough of these rivets and the plane is not safe to fly or society is not workable. You may find that plane safe to fly with that rivet removed but there are 100 other passengers on that plane that may feel otherwise.
What rivet that remain on the plane or laws on the books is a function of the majority. What you may feel comfortable with I may reel in fear from , just a matter of perspective.[/i]

paperburn1 wrote:Lets try this from another approach, you get on an airplane bound for your favorite destination. as you are making yourself comfortable you see a man on the wing drilling out a rivet. You don't worry and you make your flight and land safely.
Next your a frequent flier and every time you get on the plane you See a man get on the wing and remove a rivet. How long are you going to keep flying the plane before its unsafe.
This argument applies to legalization of anything. The plane is the fabric of society the man on the wing is removing a law and your the passenger.

You can very easily make the argument that smoking pot is less harmful than drinking but because it is less harmful do we need to get rid of it? It is but one more law of society that we have and helps hold everything together. Remove enough of these rivets and the plane is not safe to fly or society is not workable. You may find that plane safe to fly with that rivet removed but there are 100 other passengers on that plane that may feel otherwise.
What rivet that remain on the plane or laws on the books is a function of the majority. What you may feel comfortable with I may reel in fear from , just a matter of perspective.[/i]

The obvious answer is to make everything illegal. Everyone is either a criminal or government. Sometimes both. The perfect society.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum

BTW I'm against legalizing pot. What I favor is relegalizing it. Returning to the status quo ante.

Whose fears should run society? Government is a product of your fears. And you can never have too much government or too many fears can you?

I prefer to live without fear and just deal with what comes up. I admit it is an unusual attitude.

The fearful attitude is so common among people without faith. Which explains all the faith in government. Once upon a time such faith was referred to as idolatry. Now it is the most common religion extant. I am highly amused. God is a man with a gun who has come to help you.



Yes my friend. The state will protect you. Well except when there is trouble at your door. Then you find out that the protection is at the convenience of the state (check out case law if you don't believe me). And perhaps you have become inconvenient. It happens.

Given that we have to get rid of something to mollify the mob I'd get rid of alcohol. That stuff can kill you.

From Time Magazine:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/w ... ic-deaths/

It turns out we are prohibiting the wrong stuff. What we need to do is return to the time when pot was legal and alcohol was not. Just watch society improve.