In this thread: I destroy liberal Ideology by playing the part of a liberal

other than what may happen behind closed doors.....which actions don't have any effect on others.....?


I should have emphasized the word infringes on the rights of others. If an action infringes on the personal rights of another non-consenting individual, than it should be prohibited. This includes things like murder & rape.

But the act of smoking marijuana does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, therefore it should be made legal.

I think this is libertarian ideology. Not 100% sure though. What objections do you have to this sort of thinking?

effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....


A new study suggests that legalizing medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities. The authors noted that legalizing marijuana reduces alcohol consumption, and people are more wary of driving high than drunk. Which drug is actually more dangerous on the road?

Alcohol, and it’s not even close......Yale psychiatrist Richard Sewell reviewed the academic literature on driving while intoxicated in a 2009 article, and found that alcohol is significantly more dangerous. Real-world data from auto accidents indicate that a drunk driver is approximately 10 times more likely to cause a fatal accident than a stoned driver. In most studies, smoking one-third of a joint or less has virtually no impact on a driver’s performance. A couple of studies even suggest that pot smokers are less likely to cause an accident than sober drivers.

It’s a little surprising that THC has such a small effect on driving. In experiments testing the skills required for driving—coordination, visual tracking, and reaction time—rather than driving itself, subjects under the influence of pot fare significantly worse than sober people. But when you put them behind the wheel of a driving simulator, tokers perform okay. Those who have taken in a moderate dose of the drug show minimal impairment, and very experienced smokers show almost no deficit at all.

Does marijuana make you a more dangerous driver than alcohol? - Slate Magazine

However I think the libertarian thought on this is you are responsible for your actions. If you're drunk/stoned and you cause an accident, you are to blame. Not the alcohol, not the pot....you.
 
I am surprised that no liberal accused you of hating baths.

Lucky you. The libs are to flabbergasted to come up with a simple and quick one line retort.
 
effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....

Then we should ban alcohol for the exact same reason.
 
I should have emphasized the word infringes on the rights of others. If an action infringes on the personal rights of another non-consenting individual, than it should be prohibited. This includes things like murder & rape.

But the act of smoking marijuana does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, therefore it should be made legal.

I think this is libertarian ideology. Not 100% sure though. What objections do you have to this sort of thinking?

effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....


Smoking marijuana = legal.
Smoking marijuana and then driving = illegal.

it's the same as....

Owning a gun = legal.
Owning a gun and shooting it at a person (not in self defense) = illegal.

get it? The act of smoking marijuana hurts no one.

so you are OK with this too.....?

mainlining heroin = legal.

mainlining heroin and then driving = illegal.
 
effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....


Smoking marijuana = legal.
Smoking marijuana and then driving = illegal.

it's the same as....

Owning a gun = legal.
Owning a gun and shooting it at a person (not in self defense) = illegal.

get it? The act of smoking marijuana hurts no one.

so you are OK with this too.....?

mainlining heroin = legal.

mainlining heroin and then driving = illegal.

Personally ScreamingEagle, I am pro-legalization of all drugs. If people want to be idiots and destroy their entire lives and reputation by taking heroin, that's their choice. Just don't come crying for help when you don't have anything left...

We spend billions and billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man hours, effort, and concentration by locking up and incarcerating people who are no threat at all against any other individuals within the society except for themselves. I see that WASTE as far more detrimental to us all than having a few strung out drug addicts destroying their own lives by making poor decisions.

.
 
Last edited:
effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....


Smoking marijuana = legal.
Smoking marijuana and then driving = illegal.

it's the same as....

Owning a gun = legal.
Owning a gun and shooting it at a person (not in self defense) = illegal.

get it? The act of smoking marijuana hurts no one.

so you are OK with this too.....?

mainlining heroin = legal.

mainlining heroin and then driving = illegal.

Yes.

It's not illegal to hit yourself in the head with a hammer. It is illegal to swerve off the road and smash into a pedestrian. (in this example the person driving has a concussion from hitting themselves in the head with a hammer).

So I agree doing heroin, and hitting yourself in the head are incredibly stupid, but neither liberty should be pulled from the people.
 
effect.....infringe......tomayto.....tomato.....

the act of smoking marijuana does have effects/infringes on the rights of others......for example a dude who's spaced out driving a car and hits someone is doing just that....


Smoking marijuana = legal.
Smoking marijuana and then driving = illegal.

it's the same as....

Owning a gun = legal.
Owning a gun and shooting it at a person (not in self defense) = illegal.

get it? The act of smoking marijuana hurts no one.

so you are OK with this too.....?

mainlining heroin = legal.

mainlining heroin and then driving = illegal.

Yes.
 
And.....the Democrats were also the largest group supporting Civil Right. So, how many of those southern states are still Democratic?

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

you're being misleading.....of course there were "more" Democrats voting for the bill because there were more Democrats in office....

however more Rs voted for it percentage-wise than Ds....and don't forget it was Democrats led by Strom Thurman (D-SC) that led the Senate filibuster AGAINST the bill....

By party - Civil Rights Act 1964

The original House version:[15]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[16]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[15]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[15]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was being no more misleading than you were. It was simply not a Republcan v Democrat issue. It was a North v South issue. Southern representative voted in large numbers against it regardless of party. Northern representatives voted in large number for it regardless of party. Thurman was from a Southern state.

yet it is being made a Republican v Democrat issue today....Democrats keep claiming that Republicans are racist bigots.....when history shows otherwise...

....the facts show 80% of Rs were FOR the Civil Rights bill while only 60% of the Ds were for it......and a large group of Democrats filibustered against it.....
 
Smoking marijuana = legal.
Smoking marijuana and then driving = illegal.

it's the same as....

Owning a gun = legal.
Owning a gun and shooting it at a person (not in self defense) = illegal.

get it? The act of smoking marijuana hurts no one.

so you are OK with this too.....?

mainlining heroin = legal.

mainlining heroin and then driving = illegal.

Personally ScreamingEagle, I am pro-legalization of all drugs. If people want to be idiots and destroy their entire lives and reputation by taking heroin, that's their choice. Just don't come crying for help when you don't have anything left...

We spend billions and billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man hours, effort, and concentration by locking up and incarcerating people who are no threat at all against any other individuals within the society except for themselves. I see that WASTE as far more detrimental to us all than having a few strung out drug addicts destroying their own lives by making poor decisions.

.

well at least you're consistent....

but i disagree with you because of the horrific effects of drugs on people and their families...

what really bothers me is why government will not stop the drug trafficking....
 
so you are OK with this too.....?

mainlining heroin = legal.

mainlining heroin and then driving = illegal.

Personally ScreamingEagle, I am pro-legalization of all drugs. If people want to be idiots and destroy their entire lives and reputation by taking heroin, that's their choice. Just don't come crying for help when you don't have anything left...

We spend billions and billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man hours, effort, and concentration by locking up and incarcerating people who are no threat at all against any other individuals within the society except for themselves. I see that WASTE as far more detrimental to us all than having a few strung out drug addicts destroying their own lives by making poor decisions.

.

well at least you're consistent....

but i disagree with you because of the horrific effects of drugs on people and their families...

what really bothers me is why government will not stop the drug trafficking....

Parents not loving their kids has horrific effects on people and their families, doesn't mean we should legislate gov't forced parental love.

Besides, alcohol and prescription drugs do the same thing. Hell even addictions to things besides drugs, gambling for example does the same thing.
 
Personally ScreamingEagle, I am pro-legalization of all drugs. If people want to be idiots and destroy their entire lives and reputation by taking heroin, that's their choice. Just don't come crying for help when you don't have anything left...

We spend billions and billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man hours, effort, and concentration by locking up and incarcerating people who are no threat at all against any other individuals within the society except for themselves. I see that WASTE as far more detrimental to us all than having a few strung out drug addicts destroying their own lives by making poor decisions.

.

well at least you're consistent....

but i disagree with you because of the horrific effects of drugs on people and their families...

what really bothers me is why government will not stop the drug trafficking....

Parents not loving their kids has horrific effects on people and their families, doesn't mean we should legislate gov't forced parental love.

Besides, alcohol and prescription drugs do the same thing. Hell even addictions to things besides drugs, gambling for example does the same thing.

so because other things are bad too we should just stop trying to improve civilization....? society lives or dies by its morals...
 
you're being misleading.....of course there were "more" Democrats voting for the bill because there were more Democrats in office....

however more Rs voted for it percentage-wise than Ds....and don't forget it was Democrats led by Strom Thurman (D-SC) that led the Senate filibuster AGAINST the bill....

By party - Civil Rights Act 1964

The original House version:[15]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[16]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[15]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[15]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was being no more misleading than you were. It was simply not a Republcan v Democrat issue. It was a North v South issue. Southern representative voted in large numbers against it regardless of party. Northern representatives voted in large number for it regardless of party. Thurman was from a Southern state.

yet it is being made a Republican v Democrat issue today....Democrats keep claiming that Republicans are racist bigots.....when history shows otherwise...

....the facts show 80% of Rs were FOR the Civil Rights bill while only 60% of the Ds were for it......and a large group of Democrats filibustered against it.....

As if there are no racist bigots among Democrats and Republicans.

Fact also show that 100% of Southern Republicans were against it while only 95% of southern Democrats were against it.
 
well at least you're consistent....

but i disagree with you because of the horrific effects of drugs on people and their families...

what really bothers me is why government will not stop the drug trafficking....

Parents not loving their kids has horrific effects on people and their families, doesn't mean we should legislate gov't forced parental love.

Besides, alcohol and prescription drugs do the same thing. Hell even addictions to things besides drugs, gambling for example does the same thing.

so because other things are bad too we should just stop trying to improve civilization....? society lives or dies by its morals...

I just don't think we should depend on gov't to teach us all our morals, especially when that "teaching" infringes on liberties.
 
Well no, not exactly. Many here missed the spirit of humor in the O.P. and many more completely missed the point of the exercise. But 'liberal' does not mean authoritarian in most European countries but iin the modern day American vernacular it has become precisely that: progressives/leftists/liberals are the statists or political class who support and promote an ever bigger, more powerful, more influential federal government.

No ma'am.

Have you never heard of the "Moral Majority"?

Liberals want government regulation of economics and business.

Conservatives want government regulation of individual morals and behavior.

True Authoritarians want government regulation of everything.

Therefore, there is right-wing Authoritarianism (i.e. Iranian-style Theocracy) and left-wing Authoritarianism (i.e. Socialism). Or the combination of both (Fascism, or statism)

nolan_chart.png
 
/beginLiberalism

I am against swimming. It's gross, unhealthy, and unnatural. If humans were meant to swim, whether in pools, oceans, or lakes, we would have fins.

Swimming goes against my personal, abstract beliefs. Therefore, I will stop at nothing until swimming is banned for everyone. I also believe the government should stay out of our lives and that we own our own body--unless there is something I don't like, in which case I want tyranny of the majority to push for government force to make it illegal. I'm better than you if you think otherwise.

/end being a liberal

Basically you summed up T and Mudwhistle there. Thanks.:lol:
 
well at least you're consistent....

but i disagree with you because of the horrific effects of drugs on people and their families...

what really bothers me is why government will not stop the drug trafficking....

Parents not loving their kids has horrific effects on people and their families, doesn't mean we should legislate gov't forced parental love.

Besides, alcohol and prescription drugs do the same thing. Hell even addictions to things besides drugs, gambling for example does the same thing.

so because other things are bad too we should just stop trying to improve civilization....? society lives or dies by its morals...

Listen, no one’s saying that we shouldn’t improve ourselves, and teach out kids strong morals and how to live a good and decent life.

What this argument specifically comes down to:

1.) Who’s responsibility is it to micro-manage our personal morals, is it the individual (empowerment) or the government (nanny-state/fear)?
2.) By making drugs illegal (or any other sorts of non rights infringing activities), are we actually doing much more harm to society than good?

As long as drugs are illegal, there will be trafficking and horrible negative societal consequences. The only way to get rid of it is to legalize the drugs (think about the end of prohibition).

Also think about our incarceration problem. If a non-violent, intelligent human being gets caught selling marijuana and thrown in jail, do you think there’s a greater chance he/she will be a more productive member of society when released, or less? By all means, incarcerate the murders, rapists, pedophiles, ect, but is it really worth our resources to spend so much time policing people who are not infringing on anyone else’s personal rights except for their own? I don’t think so…
 
You know if I voted with Democrats maybe I'd keep trying to re-write history ...

(content removed due to the utter ridiculousness of the screed contained therein)

...Take that pile of shit to the trash heap too and set fire to it.

Wow, that was one long useless screed of spin and exaggeration.

I stopped reading about halfway through due to the fact that the entire rant was pretty much partisan revisionist history garbage.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that though.
 
I was being no more misleading than you were. It was simply not a Republcan v Democrat issue. It was a North v South issue. Southern representative voted in large numbers against it regardless of party. Northern representatives voted in large number for it regardless of party. Thurman was from a Southern state.

yet it is being made a Republican v Democrat issue today....Democrats keep claiming that Republicans are racist bigots.....when history shows otherwise...

....the facts show 80% of Rs were FOR the Civil Rights bill while only 60% of the Ds were for it......and a large group of Democrats filibustered against it.....

As if there are no racist bigots among Democrats and Republicans.

Fact also show that 100% of Southern Republicans were against it while only 95% of southern Democrats were against it.

of course there were racist bigots in both parties back then....i'm sure today as well....

still no reason to call Republicans bigots because SOUTHERNERS as a whole were bigots...
 
frazzle just won this thread.

Don't think so! But like many have said, no only this board but elsewhere, republicans love to re-write history.
You and frazzle might want to study it a tad bit more before you make such an ignorant statement.
 

Forum List

Back
Top