Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[Diogenes]

D, I keep seeing you apparently use the terms/names Libertarian and Libertine interchangeably. Its as if you feel they are two names for the same group. If that is your believe then I think at least one of those two terms doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think the difference between the two terms is minor. Libertarians advocate a "libertine" philosophy, though they may not participate in it themselves.

Libertines, on the other hand, advocate a Libertine philosophy, but they DO participate.

[Diogenes]

Sounded to me like the judges basically said "the law as written doesn't hold up and is void. Until the legislature make new law that DOES hold up, viewing will be held legal. I.e., it is legal until made illegal in a constitutional manner. Get busy legislature".

You are oversimplifying it. It is a ruling based on a technicality not unlike what the meaning of the word "is" is. (As in I did not have "sex" with that woman.)

Now who is "over-simplifying?
The judges said the law was unacceptably written. That is their job. The legislature better get on the ball and fix the law. I suspect there will be a request to maintain some portions of the law (or estop such actions) until the legislature gets it done.
But maybe not. NY, what can you say?

The law hasn't changed. It is the Judge's manner of interpreting which has. Note there were two dissensions.

[Diogenes]

This is an odd statement. I've talked to many Libertarians and have found that generally they have a broader view of history than either conservatives or liberals.

Only in an abstract "isn't that neat" sort of way. They may be able to tell you how many tank divisions did this or that in WWII, but when it comes to learning the Social/Culture LESSONS from History, they simply aren't even aware of their existence.

Again, an odd (or unknowledgable) statement. Seems what you are REALLY saying is that since they don't learn the lesson you think is correct from history, they must not know there ARE lessons.

Nutsoid, that.

If they keep repeating the same pattern of foolishness that failed in the past, why would we think they learned anything from the previous iteration of it?


As with socialism, it has failed every time it has been tried, and for the same reasons, and yet there are a lot of people who think we need to give it another go.

[Diogenes]

I've observed that behaviors traditional western morality identifies as sinful have a strong correlation with behaviors that get people hurt. The sin tag doesn't seem to discriminate so much between behaviors that harm others vs. behaviors that directly harm only willing participants. But on closer look, many "victimless" crimes have secondary impacts that spread beyond the actor.

Then charge them with creating the secondary impacts.

What D is saying is akin to "since it is a statistical certainty that young black males cause most deadly crime in the US, all young black males should be arrested".

You have a reading comprehension problem. I said nothing even remotely resembling that.

[

This of course is absurd, and it is as absurd as saying that because someone may do something you feel is a 'secondary impact" the primary activity should be prohibited. Arrest the young black murderers. Arrest the ... whatever the secondary impact activity would be, if it is illegal (or wrong).

(By the way, your first statement also is the reason why such systems seem to fall apart. Mistaking "ethics" (good vs bad) with morality (right vs wrong) results in a lot of "good intentioned" immorality, which is the proverbial road to hell)

How about this for a secondary effect?

Give free money and housing to women who get pregnant out of wedlock, and peg their increases in income to how many children they have, and then later reap the harvest of criminals.

Is this morally wrong?

[KitemanSA]

I've observed that behaviors traditional western morality identifies as sinful have a strong correlation with behaviors that get people hurt. The sin tag doesn't seem to discriminate so much between behaviors that harm others vs. behaviors that directly harm only willing participants. But on closer look, many "victimless" crimes have secondary impacts that spread beyond the actor.

Then charge them with creating the secondary impacts.

What D is saying is akin to "since it is a statistical certainty that young black males cause most deadly crime in the US, all young black males should be arrested".

You have a reading comprehension problem. I said nothing even remotely resembling that.

You have stated REPEATEDLY that since drug users might cause secondary issues they should be arrested. Sounds pretty close to me, certainly a lot nearer than "remote".

[KitemanSA]

D, I keep seeing you apparently use the terms/names Libertarian and Libertine interchangeably. Its as if you feel they are two names for the same group. If that is your believe then I think at least one of those two terms doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think the difference between the two terms is minor. Libertarians advocate a "libertine" philosophy, though they may not participate in it themselves.

Libertines, on the other hand, advocate a Libertine philosophy, but they DO participate.

Which just goes to prove that you have no concept of what a libertarian is.

[KitemanSA]

You are oversimplifying it. It is a ruling based on a technicality not unlike what the meaning of the word "is" is. (As in I did not have "sex" with that woman.)

Now who is "over-simplifying?
The judges said the law was unacceptably written. That is their job. The legislature better get on the ball and fix the law. I suspect there will be a request to maintain some portions of the law (or estop such actions) until the legislature gets it done.
But maybe not. NY, what can you say?

The law hasn't changed. It is the Judge's manner of interpreting which has. Note there were two dissensions.

That is what happens in an appellate court, the law in cases being appealed get inspected in detail and sometimes found lacking. That just means that the law should be re-worded more constitutionally.

You said that it was overturned on a technicality. Like the technicality of "unconstitutional"?

[KitemanSA]

Only in an abstract "isn't that neat" sort of way. They may be able to tell you how many tank divisions did this or that in WWII, but when it comes to learning the Social/Culture LESSONS from History, they simply aren't even aware of their existence.

Again, an odd (or unknowledgable) statement. Seems what you are REALLY saying is that since they don't learn the lesson you think is correct from history, they must not know there ARE lessons.

Nutsoid, that.

If they keep repeating the same pattern of foolishness that failed in the past, why would we think they learned anything from the previous iteration of it?

The same pattern of foolishness like, say, prohibition? Yup, sounds like you refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

[williatw]

The same pattern of foolishness like, say, prohibition? Yup, sounds like you refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

I think you are wasting your breath so to speak with Diogenes on that subject. As far as he is concerned anything that isn't total prohibition will lead to the chests of opium coming in the country in ever increasing amounts until we are all hopeless opium addicts. In other words the war on drugs(and terrorism) slowing turning our country into an authoritarian quasi-democracy that locks up more of its citizens then just about any other country is worth the price to keep those chests of opium from coming in. The damage to our constitution the insane amounts of money flowing to drug lords all worth it to keep those chests of opium from pouring in...nothing else would stop it accept jack-booted body armour wearing machine gun toting storm trooper types breaking down more and more doors of americans homes.

[Diogenes]

Then charge them with creating the secondary impacts.

What D is saying is akin to "since it is a statistical certainty that young black males cause most deadly crime in the US, all young black males should be arrested".

You have a reading comprehension problem. I said nothing even remotely resembling that.

You have stated REPEATEDLY that since drug users might cause secondary issues they should be arrested. Sounds pretty close to me, certainly a lot nearer than "remote".

Trying to see myself through the filter of your perception seems to be a futile effort. I do not know what the h3ll you are talking about. You obviously heard a lot of stuff I didn't say, and therefore I would suggest these ideas are the product of your mind, not mine.

Perhaps if you could make your point with a quote of mine in context?

[Diogenes]

D, I keep seeing you apparently use the terms/names Libertarian and Libertine interchangeably. Its as if you feel they are two names for the same group. If that is your believe then I think at least one of those two terms doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think the difference between the two terms is minor. Libertarians advocate a "libertine" philosophy, though they may not participate in it themselves.

Libertines, on the other hand, advocate a Libertine philosophy, but they DO participate.

Which just goes to prove that you have no concept of what a libertarian is.

Are you objecting to my characterization of the Libertines or the Libertarians?

[Diogenes]

Now who is "over-simplifying?
The judges said the law was unacceptably written. That is their job. The legislature better get on the ball and fix the law. I suspect there will be a request to maintain some portions of the law (or estop such actions) until the legislature gets it done.
But maybe not. NY, what can you say?

The law hasn't changed. It is the Judge's manner of interpreting which has. Note there were two dissensions.

That is what happens in an appellate court, the law in cases being appealed get inspected in detail and sometimes found lacking. That just means that the law should be re-worded more constitutionally.

You said that it was overturned on a technicality. Like the technicality of "unconstitutional"?

No, like the technicality of Hair splitting the conduct of a guilty man (Read the d@mn decision of the court) into being legal under a statute that had previously seen many convictions for the exact same conduct.

It is EXACTLY like Bill Clinton saying it "Depends on what the definition of "is" is. It is a phoney baloney BullSh*t argument that only a lawyer would tolerate, with the resultant effect that a law which had been perfectly understood up till now has been invalidated by the action of a Judicially active Liberal court.

Obviously the two SANE Judges on the court disagreed with the Majority's decision in effectively striking down the law.

[Diogenes]

Again, an odd (or unknowledgable) statement. Seems what you are REALLY saying is that since they don't learn the lesson you think is correct from history, they must not know there ARE lessons.

Nutsoid, that.

If they keep repeating the same pattern of foolishness that failed in the past, why would we think they learned anything from the previous iteration of it?

The same pattern of foolishness like, say, prohibition? Yup, sounds like you refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

It has long been my argument that Prohibition might very well work if implemented correctly. I know that there have been a massive number of people who keep repeating that it doesn't work, but that is not because it's true, but merely because this is what they fervently wish to believe.

I have watched and read as much about the topic of Alcohol Prohibition as have most people, and probably more than most, and even amongst the critics of Prohibition there are those who say it might have worked had it not tried to go so far so fast.

As I have just mentioned to MSimon, last night I watched a PBS show on Meth Addiction, and learned of the fact that Prohibition has absolutely worked to eliminate the class of drugs known as Quaaludes. I see how the continuously ratcheting pressure exerted on the Tobacco product is resulting in an erosion of it's use.

I suspect a long steady incremental approach to wiping it out will eventually be successful but for the fact that Governments are starting to realize how much money they get from the sale of tobacco, and so they have slowed their efforts to stop it all together.

I'm gonna stop here. In my experience, you and others have difficulty with dealing with more than one complex aspect of a subject at a time.
I actually doubt i've transferred any information to you this time anyway.

[Diogenes]

The same pattern of foolishness like, say, prohibition? Yup, sounds like you refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

I think you are wasting your breath so to speak with Diogenes on that subject. As far as he is concerned anything that isn't total prohibition will lead to the chests of opium coming in the country in ever increasing amounts until we are all hopeless opium addicts. In other words the war on drugs(and terrorism) slowing turning our country into an authoritarian quasi-democracy that locks up more of its citizens then just about any other country is worth the price to keep those chests of opium from coming in. The damage to our constitution the insane amounts of money flowing to drug lords all worth it to keep those chests of opium from pouring in...nothing else would stop it accept jack-booted body armour wearing machine gun toting storm trooper types breaking down more and more doors of americans homes.

All of that horrible stuff you see coming would arrive MUCH faster were we to open the floodgates on drugs. But I don't think with your limited understanding that you can even comprehend how this might be possible, despite this exact thing having already happened in China.

Simon is always saying that those people wanting to enforce drug laws are bringing us to a totalitarian state. I flip it on him and assert that it is those people who keep BREAKING drug laws that are pushing us to a totalitarian state. If they would just stop doing it, there would be no need to HAVE a war on drugs.

The Libertarians do not wish to take any responsibility for the real world effects of their belief system, which when you come to think of it is pretty much all you need to know about them.

[KitemanSA]

I think the difference between the two terms is minor. Libertarians advocate a "libertine" philosophy, though they may not participate in it themselves.

Libertines, on the other hand, advocate a Libertine philosophy, but they DO participate.

Which just goes to prove that you have no concept of what a libertarian is.

Are you objecting to my characterization of the Libertines or the Libertarians?

Are you really this F@#&ing stupid or just trolling the pot?