Zone1 Are people responsible for their own actions, or are others responsible for someone else's actions?

[MarathonMike]

The problem with my discussion is some people don't want to actually discuss it because it'll be too inconvenient for them.

You don't get it obviously, so I'll just go over ONE issue. There are countless Americans who have died from Fentanyl. You want to paint the victims with one broad brush under the guise of "individual responsibility". What about the college kid at a party who tried a pill someone gave him that was laced with Fentanyl? What about a man with excruciating back pain who buys what he thinks is a Percoset that contains Fentanyl? You lump them in with hardcore Fentanyl users like George Floyd because that is CONVENIENT for you and your politics. Now do you understand?

 

[b m belk 485]

You get killed by the person pulling the trigger.

You kill yourself by ingesting a bunch of dope.

.....................................................

Fairly simple.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't get it obviously, so I'll just go over ONE issue. There are countless Americans who have died from Fentanyl. You want to paint the victims with one broad brush under the guise of "individual responsibility". What about the college kid at a party who tried a pill someone gave him that was laced with Fentanyl? What about a man with excruciating back pain who buys what he thinks is a Percoset that contains Fentanyl? You lump them in with hardcore Fentanyl users like George Floyd because that is CONVENIENT for you and your politics. Now do you understand?

No. What I'm doing is setting up a debate about where responsibilities lies in general.

I took two issues that I know people like you will have a hard time finding a consistent position. Which is why I think it could be a good debate, if only people will talk about it properly.

Your comment about lumping people together seems to have no place in this debate, as a man who buy Percoset is not getting his drugs from drug runners.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You get killed by the person pulling the trigger.

You kill yourself by ingesting a bunch of dope.

.....................................................

Fairly simple.

What about in a society like China where the government restricts guns and drugs, so you're far less likely to be able to be killed by someone with a gun, or to overdose on illegal drugs. Did the government play no part in this? And if the government allows this to happen, is there no responsibility there on the part of the government.

 

[b m belk 485]

What about in a society like China where the government restricts guns and drugs, so you're far less likely to be able to be killed by someone with a gun, or to overdose on illegal drugs. Did the government play no part in this? And if the government allows this to happen, is there no responsibility there on the part of the government.

Those people went out of their way to get a gun or drugs, so my assertion carries even more weight under those circumstances.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those people went out of their way to get a gun or drugs, so my assertion carries even more weight under those circumstances.

Yes, but the point is the government could prevent things. If it chooses not to prevent things, is it not responsible?

 

[MarathonMike]

No. What I'm doing is setting up a debate about where responsibilities lies in general.

I took two issues that I know people like you will have a hard time finding a consistent position. Which is why I think it could be a good debate, if only people will talk about it properly.

Your comment about lumping people together seems to have no place in this debate, as a man who buy Percoset is not getting his drugs from drug runners.

You put this thread in the Clean Debate Zone, so debate me! Tell me SPECIFICALLY where my statements in the 'three Fentanyl deaths' example I posted are wrong, and why. That is what DEBATE means. Can you do that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You put this thread in the Clean Debate Zone, so debate me! Tell me SPECIFICALLY where my statements in the 'three Fentanyl deaths' example I posted are wrong, and why. That is what DEBATE means. Can you do that?

I don't see it's relevant to this debate.

 

[MarathonMike]

I don't see it's relevant to this debate.

Read the first sentence of your thread title. You just don't want to debate me for obvious reasons.

 

[GLASNOST]

You don't get it obviously, so I'll just go over ONE issue. There are countless Americans who have died from Fentanyl. You want to paint the victims with one broad brush under the guise of "individual responsibility". What about the college kid at a party who tried a pill someone gave him that was laced with Fentanyl? What about a man with excruciating back pain who buys what he thinks is a Percoset that contains Fentanyl? You lump them in with hardcore Fentanyl users like George Floyd because that is CONVENIENT for you and your politics. Now do you understand?

Something to say about it ... or maybe something not to say about it:

 

[MarathonMike]

Something to say about it ... or maybe something not to say about it:

That video is an interesting discussion on the 'addictive personality' vs 'you are always responsible'. There are clearly people who are predisposed to being addicts and I believe those people DO have a choice that they can and should make to CONTROL or STOP their addiction. There are for example detox programs that drug addicts know are available.

However to go back to my example of the 'three different Fentanyl deaths". the college kid just taking a pill at a party laced with Fentanyl or the guy in excruciating pain who buys what he thinks is Percocet and it's laced with Fentanyl are far different from the addict. They are innocent victims of a hidden poison and NOT responsible for what happened to them.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, again, you know that and so a lot of people should know that.

The problems in US society, the problems with freedom, are there for all to see. The war on drugs has been going on for decades, with the US fighting in Columbia and all sorts of things, and it hasn't been solved the way it's going.

Maybe it's time to make drugs legal, make drug companies tell people what the drugs are, perhaps have legal places where they can take these drugs too, so there are people around to deal with the problems (and tax the drugs and spend the money on helping such people), and dealing with the issues of why people take drugs.

No, instead there's a president pardoning drug traffickers while murdering people at sea.

Nah, I like my way better, and are you seriously trying to equate cartels with legit drug companies?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Read the first sentence of your thread title. You just don't want to debate me for obvious reasons.

I'm perfectly fine debating people. It's literally what I'm looking for on here.

But I just do not see the relevance of what you've said.

So, try again, stick to the topic, and then we can debate.

All I see is you posting something irrelevant and then trying to do some kind of victory dance around a naked woman.

I'm literally talking with OKTexas on here. If I start a thread I will try and talk with most people, except Westwall and a few others who are on double ignore.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nah, I like my way better, and are you seriously trying to equate cartels with legit drug companies?

No, I'm not trying to equate cartels with legitimate drug companies.

What we're talking about is illegal drugs coming into the US and being sold and consumed by people who then die and guns being bought by people in the US and then people using them to kill.

I don't know what you're talking about legitimate drug companies.

 

[longly]

We're going to use drugs and guns.

1) People who consume drugs and die are killing themselves OR people who consume drugs are being killed by drug traffickers (like the dude Trump pardoned, like the ones in boats in the Caribbean) OR killed by the drug dealers.

2) People who are killed with guns are killed by the gun OR they are killed by the people who sell the guns OR they're killed by the person who pulls the trigger.

If a person is killed by drug traffickers, then the same logic says the person who sells transports the guns is also doing the killed.
If a person is killed by drug dealer, then the same logic says the person who sold the gun is also doing the killing.
If the person who took the drug killed themselves, then the same logic suggests that the person pulling the trigger did the killing
If the drug killed the person, then the same logic suggests that the gun did the killing.

Which logic do you go for?

It's not that simple. The problem is that many drug pushers engage in recruiting. They provide free samples to high school students and, in some cases, even to elementary school children. Some dealers use young teenagers as recruiters—usually those who are charismatic and able to apply peer pressure to influence others. So it's not always a matter of choice, unless you believe the young are capable of making fully logical decisions. As far as I'm concerned, drug pushers and everyone else involved in the drug industry are murderers and enslavers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not that simple. The problem is that many drug pushers engage in recruiting. They provide free samples to high school students and, in some cases, even to elementary school children. Some dealers use young teenagers as recruiters—usually those who are charismatic and able to apply peer pressure to influence others. So it's not always a matter of choice, unless you believe the young are capable of making fully logical decisions. As far as I'm concerned, drug pushers and everyone else involved in the drug industry are murderers and enslavers.

Of course it's never that simple.

The government plays a part in this. But then again it plays a part in guns too.

Why do people take drugs? You can talk about ghettos, people who are left behind by society before they've hit puberty, politicians who are only about enriching themselves.

We can see this in the UK. The Tories are accused of having stolen £10 billion (like US$15 billion) during covid, along with doubling the national debt, and increasing taxes by 90%, but only increased public spending by 25%.

Where'd all the money go?

In their own pockets. Crime has risen, education got worse, the NHS got worse, roads became an absolute nightmare.

Labour sorted out the gun problem in the early 2000s (when Nottingham was known as Shottingham), because they dealt with the situation.

In the US it doesn't seem like anyone's that much interested, unless they don't have the power to do anything about it, ie, the people who live in the area.

But what about the gun industry? You're making weapons. What's the point of the weapon? To kill. People do go kill. Sell weapons to people with mental issues, sell weapons to anyone, as long as you make money.

The difference between the two is that one is illegal and the other is legal. Which is worse? That the government says "don't do this" and can't stop people, or just says "do it all you like"?

 

[IM2]

You make your own decisions and choose your own path. With few exceptions, people end up where they are in life because of the choices they made, good or bad.

That's nice to believe, but it is not reality. Things are just not that simple.

 

[OKTexas]

No, I'm not trying to equate cartels with legitimate drug companies.

What we're talking about is illegal drugs coming into the US and being sold and consumed by people who then die and guns being bought by people in the US and then people using them to kill.

I don't know what you're talking about legitimate drug companies.

Sorry charlie, you said drug companies as if cartels are legit drug companies. To my knowledge "drug companies" are already required to tell people what the drugs are.

Maybe it's time to make drugs legal, make drug companies tell people what the drugs are,

What we're talking about is illegal drugs coming into the US

Illegal drugs don't come from "drug companies".

.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Define disease. (I'm literally ignorant of the term "disease" right now, I'm going to take a look).

Definition of DISEASE

a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms : sickness, malady; a harmful development (as in a social institution); trouble… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"1) a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms "

Hmm. No, I don't think drug addiction meets this definition.

"2) a harmful development (as in a social institution)"

No, I don't think it meets this definition either.

However, I do know that people have addictive personalities. Is this something that "impairs normal function", no.

I don't think drug addiction is a disease.

I think it's as serious issue, something that needs to be understood. I think in China or other countries where it's very difficult to get drugs to be addicted to them, people will still have addictive personalities, but that doesn't mean it will end up as a drug problem.

Some people take drugs for a variety of reasons, mostly to avoid reality.

But that isn't the point of this topic.

The point is about the source of people's method of dying.

I don't disagree with you especially since there are all types of addictions, gambling & sex are that readily come to mind. But I think the general definition has to do with repeatedly engaging in behavior that has a known adverse affect on your life but being unable to stop the behavior.

Also I believe drug use is a copying mechanism that people engage in when they perceive it easier to deal with whatever the situation is, by escaping from it, even temporarily that deal with the root cause. Think of having to deal with a crappy you're unable to get a better one due to lack of opportunity, education, experience, etc. but you have to keep it because you need a source of income I know of people who cope with this situation by smoking weed when they're on their own time even though I realize weed is not likely one of the main drugs of concern.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry charlie, you said drug companies as if cartels are legit drug companies. To my knowledge "drug companies" are already required to tell people what the drugs are.



Illegal drugs don't come from "drug companies".

.

Right, I get your meaning now.

Drug companies, as far as I'm aware, in the US need to get all drugs approved to be sold in the US. You were talking about Mexican companies selling in Mexico, if I understood it correctly.