Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't consider making substances (which are known to be harmful) illegal to be slavery.
Do you understand that in order to have nice roads and other "services" that we need to pay taxes. Who in the hell would pay for it otherwise? Taxes are a way to pool our money together to get things done that need to be done in order to have a successful country and economy!
I would pay for roads because I like roads. Wouldn't you? If enough people wouldn't pay for it, then roads do not have the required support to justify their existence. Considering that fidget spinners exist by this very same free-market, supply and demand principle, I'm sure roads wouldn't be a problem once the sleeping masses awoke to the fact that society is their personal responsibility.
Having roads doesn't justify robbing people under threat of violence in order to do it. Only via a fundamental, species-wide moral breakdown would people think any differently. The worst case scenario in a moral society is that there is no road, just as there wasn't one yesterday. In other words, nothing happens. In an immoral society, millions are enslaved (having their labor claimed by another party under threat), and that money is wastefully spent, or squandered through corruption, and used to do all sorts of things that people would never support voluntarily, like foreign wars costing billions, etc.
IF we lived in CANDY LAND, then your ideas might be valid. Lol.
That's not an argument. I know you to be a thoughtful person. I would ask that you earnestly consider what's being said, carefully evaluate the nature of your disagreement, and put it forth with clarity.
Kidnapping people? People are aware of the laws they are breaking. I don't feel sorry for them. If you CHOOSE to do drugs and break the law, then the consequences are yours to deal with. Dummy.
Ok, so if I could get enough people to agree that that the new law should be "A woman must obey the commands of a man under any and all circumstances, under punishment of death", and you are aware of this law, but break it, should I feel sorry for you? Hey, you chose to break the law - so deal with the consequences dummy?
You're arguing that law is not subject to moral review. It's totalitarian logic, and not even in keeping with the vision of the founding fathers, no less my personal anti-authoritarian position.
No, I don't believe we are under any obligation to obey the commands of another as it regards which states of consciousness we are free to experience, or what substances to put in our own bodies. Anyone who claims the right to make such commands is making a claim to ownership over the body of any person subject to that command, which is slavery.
Apples and oranges. Drugs are harmful to society as a whole.
Hell, if all the druggies want to do drugs and OD, then it's really no skin off my nose. It would probably be better for society as a whole, as cold as that sounds. There are certain TYPES of people in this world though. If they didn't harm others in their quest for their drugs, then I would have no problem with legalizing ALL drugs.
Kidnapping people? People are aware of the laws they are breaking. I don't feel sorry for them. If you CHOOSE to do drugs and break the law, then the consequences are yours to deal with. Dummy.
Ok, so if I could get enough people to agree that that the new law should be "A woman must obey the commands of a man under any and all circumstances, under punishment of death", and you are aware of this law, but break it, should I feel sorry for you? Hey, you chose to break the law - so deal with the consequences dummy?
You're arguing that law is not subject to moral review. It's totalitarian logic, and not even in keeping with the vision of the founding fathers, no less my personal anti-authoritarian position.
No, I don't believe we are under any obligation to obey the commands of another as it regards which states of consciousness we are free to experience, or what substances to put in our own bodies. Anyone who claims the right to make such commands is making a claim to ownership over the body of any person subject to that command, which is slavery.
Apples and oranges. Drugs are harmful to society as a whole.
There's a disconnect here. Apples and oranges are not identical in every way, but they are in some ways. A comparison can be made on different qualities. If I am making the argument that they are identical in color, it would be an invalid argument. If I'm making the argument that they are both edible, it would be perfectly valid.
Logic and morality do not change dependent upon specific qualities that you choose to isolate, such as "harmful". The principle in my example is identical to what you're condoning. Just because you prefer one to the other doesn't change this fact. You are saying that breaking the law is never justified because you know what the law is and choose to break it. By this logic, ANY law would be justified.
I don't believe people should be jailed for marijuana USE either. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the family the user leaves behind is enormous. By jailing a Pot user you have not solved a problem, you have created a problem. That makes no sense to me.Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
I don't believe people should be jailed for marijuana USE either. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the family the user leaves behind is enormous. By jailing a Pot user you have not solved a problem, you have created a problem. That makes no sense to me.Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Hell, if all the druggies want to do drugs and OD, then it's really no skin off my nose. It would probably be better for society as a whole, as cold as that sounds. There are certain TYPES of people in this world though. If they didn't harm others in their quest for their drugs, then I would have no problem with legalizing ALL drugs.
So drug users innocent of crimes against others should be criminalized because of what other drug users do? So let's put all young men in prison since most violent crimes are committed by young men. You can choose any broad category of people and make this argument. I'm sorry to say, but it's a deplorable disregard for individual rights, which is what this country's independence was founded upon.
It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.
See, right there, you called it ridiculous, and poor knowledge of history and humans. You didn't detail why, only that you view it that way and disagree.No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.
My simple statement that human beings are flawed dismantles his entire idea. Not to mention, he has no ideas of his own, just government is bad in every scenario. I don't agree. I already stated why I think some limited government is necessary. Like I said, to think that people and especially certain kinds of people would self govern is just ridiculous Candy Land type of thinking and shows a poor knowledge of history of humans and how brutal they actually are to one another when they feel desperate.
See, right there, you called it ridiculous, and poor knowledge of history and humans. You didn't detail why, only that you view it that way and disagree.No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.
My simple statement that human beings are flawed dismantles his entire idea. Not to mention, he has no ideas of his own, just government is bad in every scenario. I don't agree. I already stated why I think some limited government is necessary. Like I said, to think that people and especially certain kinds of people would self govern is just ridiculous Candy Land type of thinking and shows a poor knowledge of history of humans and how brutal they actually are to one another when they feel desperate.
You could try to explain why government is needed in areas, and which areas.
This argument and arguments like this one matter to me, because I am still making up my mind. While I can give someone a list of things I disagree with, I can't give someone a definite answer regarding what exactly I believe is optimal. I've been following this argument, and I guess what I'm trying to say is that I kind of need this, and I'm sure other people do as well.
I don't believe people should be jailed for marijuana USE either. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the family the user leaves behind is enormous. By jailing a Pot user you have not solved a problem, you have created a problem. That makes no sense to me.Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
I don't believe people should be jailed for marijuana USE either. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the family the user leaves behind is enormous. By jailing a Pot user you have not solved a problem, you have created a problem. That makes no sense to me.Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
Of course I agree with your accurate assessment, though I'm troubled by the nature of your argument. The primary reason why imprisoning people for drug use is ill-advised is because it's immoral, not because it's expensive. However, both morality and expense both speak to practicality in the long run, so I don't fault you for being pragmatic... I'd just like to extend that pragmatism to the core principle at play.
Some government is necessary to prevent the strong from overpowering or taking advantage of the week.No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.
My simple statement that human beings are flawed dismantles his entire idea. Not to mention, he has no ideas of his own, just government is bad in every scenario. I don't agree. I already stated why I think some limited government is necessary. Like I said, to think that people and especially certain kinds of people would self govern is just ridiculous Candy Land type of thinking and shows a poor knowledge of history of humans and how brutal they actually are to one another when they feel desperate.
