Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Mix   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: Kid]
    #357118 - 07/19/01 02:02 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Kid writes:

"Anyway, I would love it if you could show me where in the constitution of the USA it says that all people have the right to intoxicate themselves".

It is clear that you misunderstand the purpose of the Constituion.

The intent of the Constitution is clear. INDIVIDUALS are allowed to act in any manner not specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution. If we were allowed to do ONLY what is specifically mentioned, the Constitution would have been longer than a telephone book:

"You are allowed to use a telephone"
"You are allowed to dress funny"
"You are allowed to dance in a disco"
"You are allowed to mutilate yourself with piercings"
"You are allowed.... (fill in the blank)"

Conversely, the STATE is allowed to do ONLY what is specifically PERMITTED it by the Constituion.

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the actions of GOVERNMENT, not of private citizens. The government of the United States is a constitutionally delimited republic (not a Democracy) because the founding fathers saw that the biggest threat to its citizens was government. It is abundantly clear that their intent was to restrict the government to its sole legitimate function: that of protecting its citizens.

To prohibit people from intoxicating themselves on the grounds that they MIGHT be so affected by the specific intoxicant that they may harm another individual is as specious as prohibiting people from driving a car because they MIGHT harm a pedestrian or other driver, or segregating males between the age of fourteen to forty from females because their raging hormones MIGHT cause them to rape.

Prohibiting people from intoxicating themselves on these grounds amounts to prior restraint.





--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: Phred]
    #357159 - 07/19/01 05:30 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> The intent of the Constitution is clear. INDIVIDUALS are allowed to act in any manner not specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

Where does it say in the constitution, specifically, that you may not drive on a highway more than 100 miles per hour?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: fuzzysquirelnuts]
    #357609 - 07/19/01 05:17 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> ive actually had psychotic episodes quite a few times while i was sober which is more than when ive been under the influence unless you count uncontrollable laughing fits once on dxm i cried for close to an hour until my frind came in and calmed me down

Simply laughing is NOTHING NEAR A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE

A psychotic episode is loosing touch with reality. It's marked by clear delusions in the face of evidence that is otherwise.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: hunterthompson]
    #357610 - 07/19/01 05:20 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Look never mind; I'm not arguing that the WoD is a good thing. I think it's an attrocious waste of human life. I was simply trying to bring up the point that's it's not as clear cut an issue as the gov't simply stepping on people because they don't like stoners.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehunterthompson
I climb rocks

Registered: 11/15/00
Posts: 189
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: Kid]
    #357585 - 07/19/01 06:17 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

the argument here is not on the WOD itself, what I was bringing up is that is goes against all the principals this country was founded on


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Concepts vs. Concretes [Re: Kid]
    #357710 - 07/19/01 10:31 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Kid writes:

"Where does it say in the constitution, specifically, that you may not drive on a highway more than 100 miles per hour?"

Clearly the Constitution was never meant to be a complete criminal code, listing in excruciating detail every single example of punishable behaviour. Rather, it was meant to be the FOUNDATION on which an objective criminal code is built. The Constitution supplies the principles, the criminal code supplies the specifics. Over time the details of those specifics may change, (as new technology such as the automobile are invented) yet still remain constitutional as long as those details do not violate the fundamental principle involved.

Let's dissect your example conceptually.

You were careful to specify "highway" in your example. This indicates that you are aware of the difference between PUBLIC behaviour and PRIVATE behaviour. I presume, then, that you recognize that the state has no right to prohibit someone from driving his car as fast as he pleases on his own property? Or as fast as the owner of a privately-owned racetrack will allow, should our hypothetical driver be permitted access to that racetrack by the owner?

The basic concept involved in this specific example is not "Does the state have a constitutional right to criminalize behaviour occurring on private property that is not IN AND OF ITSELF injurious to other individuals (in this case piloting a vehicle in excess of an arbitrarily determined velocity)?" It is clear that the state does not have this right. Whether it conceptually has the right to criminalize similar behaviour on PUBLICLY-OWNED property is what must be determined in the case of highway speed limits.

Similarly, the basic CONCEPT involved in Hunter's original post is not whether the state has the right to criminalize PUBLIC intoxication. That is something for legal and constitutional scholars to hammer out, and is irrelevant to the War on Drugs.

The reason that the current drug laws are unconstitutional is that they criminalize PRIVATE behaviour occuring on PRIVATE property. Even if you are a hermit living miles from other humans on your own land, if you pick a psilocybe azurescens and eat it and lie on your bed until your intoxication passes, you are a criminal.

Clearly you are one who enjoys debate. Your arguments will carry more force and gain more respect if they can be defended conceptually.

pinky










--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefuzzysquirelnuts
veteran
Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 1,150
Loc: souhwest us
Re: You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: Kid]
    #357489 - 07/19/01 10:33 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

i dont agree with kid but everybodies entitled to there own opinion.....ive actually had psychotic episodes quite a few times while i was sober which is more than when ive been under the influence unless you count uncontrollable laughing fits once on dxm i cried for close to an hour until my frind came in and calmed me down...i know people who turn into real dicks when they get stoned but they do it just cause everybody else around is not wanting to do anything about it but these are how these people act most of the time it is either more noticable or it is brought out a little more....but i know people who ide rather be around when they are all huffed out than when they are sober just because they are more predictable

i can believe its not butter but why would you do that


--------------------
were all retarded sometimes

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Concepts vs. Concretes [Re: Phred]
    #358176 - 07/21/01 05:37 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> This indicates that you are aware of the difference between PUBLIC behaviour and PRIVATE behaviour.

Yes, but I'm certain that our ideas of what is private and what is public would vastly differ.

> "Does the state have a constitutional right to criminalize behaviour occurring on private property that is not IN AND OF ITSELF injurious to others?"

What about activities that are not "in and of {themselves}" injurious (or dangerous) to others, but that are, as a matter of consequence injurious or dangerous to others?

> The reason that the current drug laws are unconstitutional is that they criminalize PRIVATE behaviour occuring on PRIVATE property.

Just as the same way authorities are (and in a much greater extent in the past, have been) reluctant to intervene in cases of domestic/child assault because such matters are "private"?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Examples, please [Re: Kid]
    #358471 - 07/21/01 07:03 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Kid writes:

"I'm certain that our ideas of what is private and what is public would vastly differ."

Even if our definitions of private and public differ, please explain how YOUR definitions of public and private (feel free to supply them at any time) give the government the Constitutional right to criminalize an individual's non-violent actions (i.e. taking drugs) that take place on private property without the knowledge of any other individual. Feel free to modify my example of a hermit eating a mushroom to fit your definitions of private and public if you can't come up with one on your own.

"What about activities that are not "in and of {themselves}" injurious (or dangerous) to others, but that are, as a matter of consequence injurious or dangerous to others?"

Give us an example. I can't think of one.

"Just as the same way authorities are (and in a much greater extent in the past, have been) reluctant to intervene in cases of domestic/child assault because such matters are "private"?"

Clearly the State has not only the right to interfere in such cases, but the OBLIGATION to do so.

First, by definition if a behaviour involves force against other individuals it quite clearly IS "injurious in and of itself" and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the justice system. It is irrelevant whether the victims are relatives or strangers.

Secondly, even though the violence may take place behind closed doors (as does virtually ALL criminal activity) it does not qualify as "private behaviour", since more than one individual is involved: the perpetrator and the unwilling victim. Burning oneself with a lit cigar is a private matter, burning a VICTIM with a lit cigar is not. Piercing your girlfriend's nipples with her consent is a private matter, piercing the nipples of a woman against her will is not, regardless of WHERE the act took place.

You have a penchant for sidetracking serious debate when you can't answer the question at hand. As a reminder, here is Hunter's question again:

"Where in the constitution does is say the government can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent people from themselves?"

Note the use of the word "non-violent". So far your sole justification for the government's war on drugs is:

"they're protecting society because drug addiction has external costs and drug use poses dangers."

No explanation of "external costs". When pressed, the best you could come up with was: "Drug overdose deaths have costs to society." So do deaths caused by overeating and by walking blindly into traffic and by diving into shallow water and... (place your favorite here).

No explanation of what "dangers" drug users "pose", other than
"The rationale is that if you can't control yourself and therefor make yourself a dangerous (and/or expensive) person from using drugs then you loose that freedom."

What about fundamentalist religious fanatics who can't control themselves and blow up people? I guess the government has the right to criminalize religion to protect its citizens, too. And, by the way, what is this "expensive" angle anyway? What has THAT got to do with the Constitution?

Your point about "uncontrolled psychotic episodes" is exactly why I introduced the concepts of PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE behaviour. If you have a bad reaction to drugs in your own basement and lurch around uncontrollably nobody is affected. If you do so in a crowded theater, different story. On the other hand, if you huddle in a corner whispering dementedly in that same theater, who is harmed?

pinky









--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Examples, please [Re: Phred]
    #358688 - 07/22/01 07:41 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> Even if our definitions of private and public differ, please explain how YOUR definitions of public and private (feel free to supply them at any time) give the government the Constitutional right to criminalize an individual's non-violent actions (i.e. taking drugs) that take place on private property without the knowledge of any other individual. Feel free to modify my example of a hermit eating a mushroom to fit your definitions of private and public if you can't come up with one on your own.

I'm just debating. Please don't say that these are my beliefs, as they are not.

Theft. Theft is a non-violent action. Theft may occur on private property. The consequence of that act may not be noticed by the victim. The gov't therefor has no right to criminalize theft?

Creulty to animals. A person owns a pet. Keeps it on private property. Tortures the animal, in private. This is not criminal behaviour? You would be happy if there were no laws to prohibit this kind of behaviour?

Nuclear weapons. You build a dangerous, twenty megaton nuclear weapon, without intent of using it in your basement. Nobody knows about it. Still, it could go off. People should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

>> "What about activities that are not "in and of {themselves}" injurious (or dangerous) to others, but that are, as a matter of consequence injurious or dangerous to others?"

> Give us an example. I can't think of one.

I think I just did.

However. I cut myself on purpose. I call an ambulance and rely on your tax dollars (not always applicable in the USA) to come and fix me up. I do this on a regular basis. Would you be happy to pay taxes to support my stupid behaviour?

> "Where in the constitution does is say the government can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent people from themselves?"

Again. You are not necessarily only being protected from yourself. Society is being protected from a hazard. You may be a responsible adult. Fine. People, normal people, still become addicts sometimes. This costs money. It's that simple.

By the way, I am not familiar with your constitution. I was more or less concerned with answering why governments deem restricting drug use ethical. If you don't want further input, don't reply.

> What about fundamentalist religious fanatics who can't control themselves and blow up people?

Fanatics can control themselves. Addicts and people under the influece cannot control some aspects of their behaviour. It's silly to assume that homicide is a sign of psychopathology.

> What has THAT got to do with the Constitution?

It's a matter of practicality. You pay taxes do you not? Society pays taxes for things that are demanded.

> If you have a bad reaction to drugs in your own basement and lurch around uncontrollably nobody is affected.

Yeah, but if you're having a psychotic episode what's to stop you from going out and killing people?




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesvoboda
Stranger
Registered: 07/21/01
Posts: 17
Re: Examples, please [Re: Kid]
    #358696 - 07/22/01 08:07 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

"Theft. Theft is a non-violent action. Theft may occur on private property. The consequence of that act may not be noticed by the victim. The gov't therefor has no right to criminalize theft?"

Does government have a "right" to criminalize anything? Is criminalization the best way of dealing with undesirable behaviour? Of course theft is a violent action irrespective of whether or not the proprietor notices the disappearance of his property. Another question is whether or not ownership itself is a violent action...

"Creulty to animals. A person owns a pet. Keeps it on private property. Tortures the animal, in private. This is not criminal behaviour?"

Not it isn't. At least it shouldn't be. It's cruel and some would say immoral behaviour but should be no more than that.

"You would be happy if there were no laws to prohibit this kind of behaviour?"

I would be happy to abolish all criminal law and let people decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

"Nuclear weapons. You build a dangerous, twenty megaton nuclear weapon, without intent of using it in your basement. Nobody knows about it. Still, it could go off. People should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?"

They should be neither allowed nor prohibited. The question we should ask is why people might want to have weapons, not whether it should be prohibited or allowed.

> "Where in the constitution does is say the government can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent people from themselves?"

"Again. You are not necessarily only being protected from yourself. Society is being protected from a hazard. You may be a responsible adult. Fine. People, normal people, still become addicts sometimes. This costs money. It's that simple".

So, Kid, would you be happy if someone comes to "protect" you, thus stopping you doing what you want to do? Do you think you are incapable to decide for yourself? Is criminalising anything the best way to "protect society from a hazard"?

"Society pays taxes for things that are demanded".

Demanded by whom?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Examples, please [Re: svoboda]
    #358744 - 07/22/01 10:44 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> Does government have a "right" to criminalize anything?

If you're asking *me* this, I have no answer

> Is criminalization the best way of dealing with undesirable behaviour

Some form of punishment, for simple deterrant effect and corrective effect, should suffice.

> Of course theft is a violent action

???
theft brings bodily harm to no one.

> Another question is whether or not ownership itself is a violent action

???
Ownership isn't even an action. It is also definately not violent.

> Not it isn't. At least it shouldn't be. It's cruel and some would say immoral behaviour but should be no more than that.

You're starting to sound like me. [ Except for "Not" should be "no" and I would've probably discluded "shouldn't" ]

> I would be happy to abolish all criminal law and let people decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

So would as, as I'd like to try killing some people just to see what it's like.

> They should be neither allowed nor prohibited. The question we should ask is why people might want to have weapons, not whether it should be prohibited or allowed.

Then we may want to ask people, why they want to have drugs. Or money. Or cars. Or houses. Etc. Etc.

> So, Kid, would you be happy if someone comes to "protect" you, thus stopping you doing what you want to do?

See, dude that's not what I'm saying. The people that don't use drugs, are at risk of being victims of random drug related occurence (DUI), and taxpayers are being protected. The drug users are clearly being prevented from doing something.

What you're asking would be similar to asking me if I was happy that I was being "protected" from committing murder. That's not the case. Society is being protected from me committing murder.

> Is criminalising anything the best way to "protect society from a hazard"?

What would you suggest in the case of sadists deciding they wanted to monopolize violence in the USA? would you happily yield your "right" to violence to the group of sadists? or would you ask for a group (eg// the military) to keep some semblance of order?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesvoboda
Stranger
Registered: 07/21/01
Posts: 17
Re: Examples, please [Re: Kid]
    #358807 - 07/22/01 01:14 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Svo: Is criminalization the best way of dealing with undesirable behaviour?
Kid: Some form of punishment, for simple deterrant effect and corrective effect, should suffice.
Svo: Why necessarily punishment? Do you think fear is the only way to motivate people? Besides, in what way can you 'correct' people by punishing them?

Svo: Of course theft is a violent action
Kid: ???
theft brings bodily harm to no one.
Svo: Theft involves an exercise of physical force, therefore is a form of violence. Violence need not necessarily involve bodily harm.

Svo: Another question is whether or not ownership itself is a violent action
Kid: ???
Ownership isn't even an action. It is also definately not violent.
Svo: By claiming your rights of ownership you exclude others from a piece of property. Rights to property are enforceable, and enforcement/force is violence.

Svo: I would be happy to abolish all criminal law and let people decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
Kid: So would as, as I'd like to try killing some people just to see what it's like.
Svo: Do people resist from killing each other simply because murder is crime?

Svo: They should be neither allowed nor prohibited. The question we should ask is why people might want to have weapons, not whether it should be prohibited or allowed.
Kid: Then we may want to ask people, why they want to have drugs. Or money. Or cars. Or houses. Etc. Etc.
Svo: I am not sure what you meant by 'etc. etc.', but it seems to me that houses do not belong to the same category as weapons and drugs. Money is a complicated thing.

Kid: What you're asking would be similar to asking me if I was happy that I was being "protected" from committing murder. That's not the case. Society is being protected from me committing murder.
Svo: So, criminalising murder protects society, then? Suppose, murder was decriminalised tomorrow. Would you go and kill someone?

Svo: Is criminalising anything the best way to "protect society from a hazard"?
Kid: What would you suggest in the case of sadists deciding they wanted to monopolize violence in the USA?
Svo: I'll talk with them and ask them why they want it.
By the way, is violence in the USA not already monopolised by the government?

Kid: would you happily yield your "right" to violence to the group of sadists? or would you ask for a group (eg// the military) to keep some semblance of order?
Svo: I'll engage in a peacemaking process with all involved, so that there is not need for violence.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Examples, please [Re: svoboda]
    #359272 - 07/23/01 05:56 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> Svo: Theft involves an exercise of physical force, therefore is a form of violence. Violence need not necessarily involve bodily harm.

Walking, eating, shitting, pissing, sleeping and breathing require excercises of physical force! Do you also consider these violent actions?

I will also have you know the the definition of violence is that it is "physical force intended to cause injury or destruction"

> Svo: Do people resist from killing each other simply because murder is crime?

No, not usually. Most people consider murder terrible. Most people wouldn't enjoy harming another human being. I would be one of those people who would do it just for the fuck of it.

> Svo: I am not sure what you meant by 'etc. etc.',

Etc. Etc. As in: carry that list on for every object.

> but it seems to me that houses do not belong to the same category as weapons and drugs.

Why? Why is it in a different class ? By what rights should the question be "why" (do you want drugs) instead of 'why do you want (food/money/cars,etc.)? Why question people on one aspect of what they desire and not another? And to what end will asking them "why" accomplish? What's the point of even asking "why" about something that's dangerous if you're not going to use the answers for any purpose?

> Svo: So, criminalising murder protects society, then? Suppose, murder was decriminalised tomorrow. Would you go and kill someone?

Yes it does protect people! If someone kills one person, then they've learned how to kill and they are dangerous and can do it again. That's why we put violent, dangerous murderers behind bars!

and yes, if homicide were decriminalized tommorow, I would kill someone. Perhaps you haven't been around the shroomery long enough to have read my posts in the past about being curious about killing people?

> Svo: I'll talk with them and ask them why they want it.

And you would expect a group of sadists to just co-operate. They'd answer your questions simply because you came up and asked, "Why do you want to hurt people?" That's pretty naive. That's about equivalent to a Jew in NAZI Germany walking upto the SS and asking them why they want to kill Jews.

> By the way, is violence in the USA not already monopolised by the government?

YES OF COURSE IT IS! ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? THAT WAS MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT! Who would you rather have in control of violence? Your government or a group of fucking crazies like the right-wing religious zealots in the mid-northwest? Either way one group or another is going to attempt to monopolize violence. Be happy that at least a somewhat trustworthy system has control.

> Svo: I'll engage in a peacemaking process with all involved, so that there is not need for violence.

You totally overestimate your peacemaking abilities. You think you could've reasoned with the NAZI party? the Kmher Rouge? huh? what would you just walk up to them, "Time out guys, this murdering isn't nice. Let's talk it over." You would be dead.


okay, other people reading this thread, I know you haven't agreed with me this far, but you've got to be seeing the idiocy in this guy's arguments?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesvoboda
Stranger
Registered: 07/21/01
Posts: 17
Re: Examples, please [Re: Kid]
    #359452 - 07/23/01 01:52 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Svo: Do people resist from killing each other simply because murder is crime?

Kid: No, not usually. Most people consider murder terrible. Most people wouldn't enjoy harming another human being. I would be one of those people who would do it just for the fuck of it.

Svo: Something inside me is telling me that you are kidding.


Svo: So, criminalising murder protects society, then? Suppose, murder was decriminalised tomorrow. Would you go and kill someone?

Kid: Yes it does protect people! If someone kills one person, then they've learned how to kill and they are dangerous and can do it again. That's why we put violent, dangerous murderers behind bars!

Svo: You seem to wrongly believe that killing is a skill which has to be learnt. It isn't. Not every killer is more dangerous than you or I. Everybody is a potential killer. Putting "violent, dangerous murderers behind bars" is immoral and seriously mistaken.

Kid: and yes, if homicide were decriminalized tommorow, I would kill someone. Perhaps you haven't been around the shroomery long enough to have read my posts in the past about being curious about killing people?

Svo: No, I didn't have pleasure to read your posts and don't want to read you sick fantacies. Don't you find it problematic that your resistance from doing something that you want to do (i.e. to kill someone) is motivated by fear of punishment and not by moral reason and choice? Kid, you are a sad and confused creature.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline~`Tursiops truncatus`~
enthusiast

Registered: 11/01/00
Posts: 105
Loc: CO... UsA
Last seen: 22 years, 2 months
Re: Examples, please [Re: svoboda]
    #359515 - 07/23/01 04:16 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Using force only causes resistance...



90+% of the human race has a mental disease. What are we doing about it?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: Examples, please [Re: svoboda]
    #359645 - 07/23/01 07:55 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

> Svo: Something inside me is telling me that you are kidding.

Incorrect. You don't me. I'm not your average specimen.

> Svo: You seem to wrongly believe that killing is a skill which has to be learnt. It isn't. Not every killer is more dangerous than you or I. Everybody is a potential killer. Putting "violent, dangerous murderers behind bars" is immoral and seriously mistaken.

What would you suggest we do with murderers? Let them walk the street.

Killing is a learned behaviour, like anything that isn't a physiological reflex. It's possible to "get a taste for it." That's when you become dangerous.

> Svo: No, I didn't have pleasure to read your posts and don't want to read you sick fantacies. Don't you find it problematic that your resistance from doing something that you want to do (i.e. to kill someone) is motivated by fear of punishment and not by moral reason and choice?

I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid foundation. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions.
It's not the law that tells me not to kill people. It's my emotions. Hurting people physically isn't fun. I know that. Killing people is just something I'm curious about doing.


As for claiming ownership being violent, if it is, then you're prooving that some violence is necessary. How can you have a piece of food without claiming it's ownership?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelichen
Stranger
Registered: 07/20/01
Posts: 19
Loc: Rocky Mountains
Last seen: 22 years, 3 months
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #359677 - 07/23/01 08:52 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

The constitution says we have the right to pursue happiness...if taking a drink makes you happy, you have a right to do so, at a stretch, right? There's probably some high-powered lawyer somewhere who could pull that off.

But of course, the constitution also says that we should not be overtaxed. You saw what the war did to that. Blew it right out of the window. So for the sake of expediency, at our master's whim, we can have all our rights taken away. Political expediency is what caused the prohibition on marijuana, right?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelichen
Stranger
Registered: 07/20/01
Posts: 19
Loc: Rocky Mountains
Last seen: 22 years, 3 months
Re: Examples, please [Re: Kid]
    #359680 - 07/23/01 09:02 PM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Sorry, that post I just put in there is a response to a previous part of the thread.

I'll tell you what, this type of debate can be never-ending because neither of you has more than an opinion, and as a rule opinions are indefensible. My opinion is always better than yours, to me, because I deal with me every day but you're a cyber-entity or because I don't have to deal with you all the time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Reason vs. Emotion [Re: Kid]
    #359772 - 07/24/01 12:32 AM (22 years, 7 months ago)

Kid writes:

"I've tried moral reasoning. I can't find anything that can be used as a solid foundation. I'm a moral nihilist. I don't follow morality. I follow my emotions."

Ah! I thought I was having a debate with someone for whom reason was valid. Instead I find that you follow your emotions. This explains everything.

Emotions are not tools of cognition. To say that something is so because "I feel it is so" is a deal-breaker as far as debate goes. There is no point in continuing. But, just to recap:

Your sole argument for declaring the War on Drugs constitutionally sound is that since the State is charged with protecting its citizens from violence, and SOME drugs SOMEtimes cause SOME people to lose control of themselves to the point where they might damage other people or other people's property, the State has the right to make the use of ALL such drugs illegal for ALL people ALL the time and imprison them for using such drugs and kill them if they try to resist being arrested.

Let's leave it to other readers to decide if this reasoning is bogus or sound.

I vote no.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Mix   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 943 11 06/27/03 04:12 PM
by Anonymous
* William F. Buckley Jr. on Marijuana Prohibition Divided_Sky 458 0 08/23/04 05:29 PM
by Divided_Sky
* The Libertarian implications of traffic laws
( 1 2 all )
Phred 1,776 32 08/22/04 02:34 PM
by Phred
* What the hell are we going to do about this prohibition???
( 1 2 all )
DirtMcgirt 929 23 12/12/04 07:12 PM
by kadakuda
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,392 13 03/15/04 07:25 PM
by Phred
* The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law Evolving 3,492 17 02/10/04 01:28 PM
by silversoul7
* Possible legal challenge of psylocybe laws?
( 1 2 all )
Randolph_Carter 2,686 31 12/05/03 03:24 PM
by Annapurna1
* Changing drug laws
( 1 2 all )
stan 4,303 22 07/31/02 05:31 AM
by toxick

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,456 topic views. 3 members, 7 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.