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

[ding]

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?

People's answers will depend upon if they have an external locus of control or an internal locus of control.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes, there are plenty of legal drug dealers. They're called "doctors".

Morphine is opium (more or less Morphine vs. Opium - What's the Difference? | This vs. That, morphine is usually stronger)

However that's not the issue. The issue is that if a person is sell you illegal drugs, or if someone is selling you a legal gun, what's the difference?

Is legality a difference? Does it change government responsibility? Is the US govt responsible for the over 15,000 gun murders that happen every year in the US?

View attachment 1192250

The government has some responsibility for gun deaths i.e. bad laws, minimal sentences, etc. Of course, in a democracy our leaders exercise the same poor judgment that the people do.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

How about this distinction that’s being left out?

1. Guns are a right in the constitution
2. Illegal drugs obviously aren’t even permitted

This is a hack thread as far as logic goes. Comparing apples to chainsaws

 

[initforme]

People are becoming more responsible as evidenced by the declining birth rate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The government has some responsibility for gun deaths i.e. bad laws, minimal sentences, etc. Of course, in a democracy our leaders exercise the same poor judgment that the people do.

And therefore the same with drugs. Bad policies for decades.

 

[Woodznutz]

And therefore the same with drugs. Bad policies for decades.

Absolutely. They are chasing the tail when they should be going for the head...the users.

 

[Woodznutz]

And therefore the same with drugs. Bad policies for decades.

Absolutely. They are chasing the tail when they should be going for the head...the users.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The point of this thread is to try and get people to think in a consistent mU anner. The problem is right now Trump supporters are saying "kill the terrorists, they're killing people with their drugs" but would NEVER admit that the person making or transporting guns is responsible for gun deaths.

If you buy an automobile and drive reckless, YOU are responsible for the consequences, not the person who sold you the car

If a drug dealer dies trying to bring illegal drugs into the country, the drug dealer is responsible

 

[frigidweirdo]

Absolutely. They are chasing the tail when they should be going for the head...the users.

Well, I think there's a lot to the whole issues. There are things the government could do to improve society so people don't end up as illegal drug users.

But government in the US seems to be about the "representative" enrich themselves, more than solving problems for the country.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, I think there's a lot to the whole issues. There are things the government could do to improve society so people don't end up as illegal drug users.

But government in the US seems to be about the "representative" enrich themselves, more than solving problems for the country.

They're in gridlock most of the time. Regarding societal problems you'd think they would ask we citizens to lend a hand, as JFK did.

 

[candycorn]

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?

I tend to think the person who did X is responsible for X unless they are under 8 years of age or have lost their faculties either through age or a fault of their own. Essentially everyone we read or hear about is responsible for whateve they did...not “indictrination”...not Trump, not Biden, etc... I do find it amusing that the President is 100% responsible for every thing when a Democrat is in office but 0% responsible for anything when it’s a republican in office.

 

[Woodznutz]

I tend to think the person who did X is responsible for X unless they are under 8 years of age or have lost their faculties either through age or a fault of their own. Essentially everyone we read or hear about is responsible for whateve they did...not “indictrination”...not Trump, not Biden, etc... I do find it amusing that the President is 100% responsible for every thing when a Democrat is in office but 0% responsible for anything when it’s a republican in office.

The people are responsible for most of our problems. So much so that the government is swamped trying to deal with them. Between fund raising for reelection and senseless arguments with the other side our reps have little time for these problems. I also think they have a justifiable disdain for the very people that elected them.

 

[candycorn]

The people are responsible for most of our problems. So much so that the government is swamped trying to deal with them. Between fund raising for reelection and senseless arguments with the other side our reps have little time for these problems. I also think they have a justifiable disdain for the very people that elected them.

When it’s at it’s best, the government has very little noticeable impact on our day to day lives. When it’s at its worst, the impact is minimal. The stakes get higher when you’re on the margins of the economy and need public assistance of coruse.

Your argument, by the way, is the best argument I have had for term limits. I am firmly against them out side of a single term and leaving the day-to-day stuff to bureaucrats.

The argument I most often hear from the proponents of term limits is essentially that “the other side needs a chance”....just ‘cuz. Having one term and thusly allowing the elected to focus 100% on constituent services making them immune from having to do fund raising makes sense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When it’s at it’s best, the government has very little noticeable impact on our day to day lives. When it’s at its worst, the impact is minimal. The stakes get higher when you’re on the margins of the economy and need public assistance of coruse.

Your argument, by the way, is the best argument I have had for term limits. I am firmly against them out side of a single term and leaving the day-to-day stuff to bureaucrats.

The argument I most often hear from the proponents of term limits is essentially that “the other side needs a chance”....just ‘cuz. Having one term and thusly allowing the elected to focus 100% on constituent services making them immune from having to do fund raising makes sense.

non-elected Bureaucrats is why we are in the mess we are in they are biased and crooked.

 

[candycorn]

non-elected Bureaucrats is why we are in the mess we are in they are biased and crooked.

What “mess” are you talking about? Greatest civilization ever fielded on the planet, highest number of Nobel prize winning scientists, highest standard of living, generally the most freedoms, among the highest incomes, most influentual culture, etc...

Only folks like your blob are trying to change all of that by getting rid of the foundation that made all of that possible.

 

[Woodznutz]

When it’s at it’s best, the government has very little noticeable impact on our day to day lives. When it’s at its worst, the impact is minimal. The stakes get higher when you’re on the margins of the economy and need public assistance of coruse.

Your argument, by the way, is the best argument I have had for term limits. I am firmly against them out side of a single term and leaving the day-to-day stuff to bureaucrats.

The argument I most often hear from the proponents of term limits is essentially that “the other side needs a chance”....just ‘cuz. Having one term and thusly allowing the elected to focus 100% on constituent services making them immune from having to do fund raising makes sense.

I'm on the fence regarding term limits as it takes a while for a newly elected rep to learn the ropes. And, if someone is doing a good job it wouldn't serve to bounce him or her.

 

[candycorn]

I'm on the fence regarding term limits as it takes a while for a newly elected rep to learn the ropes. And, if someone is doing a good job it wouldn't serve to bounce him or her.

My points exactly.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm on the fence regarding term limits as it takes a while for a newly elected rep to learn the ropes. And, if someone is doing a good job it wouldn't serve to bounce him or her.

You act as if having a fresh perspective in Washington is a bad thing. That's what keeps the "deep state" alive.. is having a majority of members "in on it" and understanding the "proper" way to act, vote, etc. Can you "play ball"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You act as if having a fresh perspective in Washington is a bad thing. That's what keeps the "deep state" alive.. is having a majority of members "in on it" and understanding the "proper" way to act, vote, etc. Can you "play ball"?

again, if you want term limits it requires amendments to the Constitution. Get cracking on convincing enough members of congress to vote for one or 38 states to vote for one. until then you can whine all you want and it won't change a thing.