 | | | | | |
--snip--
| |
| |
Crossing between reality and fiction, I’ve never been able to reconcile
this--I saw Star Wars when I was 10. Darth was tall, black and evil--he
kills people by crushing their necks and he blows up planets. And then in
‘Return of the Jedi’, I’m suppose to feel sympathy for him ‘cause he saves
his kid and, in the process dies himself? Futhermore, what are we to think
of regarding ‘cute little Anakin’ in Episode 1 of Star Wars? Here he’s all
cute and worried about mommy and the like, when we, the viewers, *know* he’s
going to grow up and become Darth Vader--killer of people and planets.
|
This is precisely the crap that the liberal minds likes to project--
confusing the lines between good and evil to the point where the two are
barely distinguishable.
|
No, that’s just reality. It’s just that liberal minds take a bit more effort to
take it into consideration.
| |
Maybe. But you have to consider the possibility that there is a good chance
that these criminals will strike again, with a less than favorable outcome
for the innocent.
|
Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for thievery? Do
you really think it’s up to the homeowner to decide that the person stealing
their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using violence, and
should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like presentience to me
which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone else you
are a murderer and you are ‘evil’. I don’t care if that person has just stolen
your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament said an ‘eye for an
eye’ rather than ‘a life for a stereo’.
| |
Of course the world is gray and nobody’s perfect; but that doesn’t mean our
standards should be gray. We should always be striving for white, which,
in part, means eschewing black. We cannot cross a divide while still keeping
a foot on both sides.
I am questioning those whose intent isn’t to strive for good, but to
explore and dwell in black. These are the people who make the world worse
for everyone else. Good people are respectful, kind, and have genuine regard
for others. Bad people don’t; they are basically selfish. And I’d go so far
as to say that good people are happy people, and selfish people aren’t. That
may seem simplistic, but not everything is rocket science:-)
|
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a genuine
regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral? What about
those who do what a lot of people consider immoral, what about those who do what
a lot of people think is moral and a larger number of people thinks is immoral?
| |
| |
Even what’s-his-name from Ontario could speak a good line--he managed to
convince someone to marry him and he was a pretty good talker. And, as
stated, he did have friends and family who wondered what became of that
‘cute kid’ they remembered.
Yes there are degrees and yes people should be held accountable for their
actions. In the process of holding people accountable, we must be careful
to not become that which we’re fighting against. I think Neitzche said
something like that.
|
Yes, we need to choose our battles wisely.
Neitzsche: God is dead.
God: Neitzsche is dead.
:-)
JOHN
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--snip--
| |
| |
Crossing between reality and fiction, I’ve never been able to reconcile
this--I saw Star Wars when I was 10. Darth was tall, black and evil--he
kills people by crushing their necks and he blows up planets. And then in
‘Return of the Jedi’, I’m suppose to feel sympathy for him ‘cause he saves
his kid and, in the process dies himself? Futhermore, what are we to think
of regarding ‘cute little Anakin’ in Episode 1 of Star Wars? Here he’s all
cute and worried about mommy and the like, when we, the viewers, *know*
he’s going to grow up and become Darth Vader--killer of people and planets.
|
This is precisely the crap that the liberal minds likes to project--
confusing the lines between good and evil to the point where the two are
barely distinguishable.
|
No, that’s just reality. It’s just that liberal minds take a bit more effort
to take it into consideration.
| |
Maybe. But you have to consider the possibility that there is a good chance
that these criminals will strike again, with a less than favorable outcome
for the innocent.
|
Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for thievery?
|
Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with real
life situations. Vigilantism isn’t ideal, because there isn’t a standard--
that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when the law fails to
bring about justice. Put it this way: I am more sympathetic to a murderer who
kills in cold blood the murderer of his young daughter who has gotten off in a
court of law on some technicality.
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will suffice;-)
| |
Do you really think it’s up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone else
you are a murderer and you are ‘evil’. I don’t care if that person has just
stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament said an
‘eye for an eye’ rather than ‘a life for a stereo’.
|
I wouldn’t advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief. How do
you feel about shootinging with the intent to wound? Guns are all we really
have now to stop thieves, and they are crude and don’t do what we necessarily
what them to do, but I’m sure that soon we will have weapons which will be able
to incapacitate without lethal force. I believe a citizen has every right to
zap a fleeing thief.
| |
| |
Of course the world is gray and nobody’s perfect; but that doesn’t mean our
standards should be gray. We should always be striving for white, which,
in part, means eschewing black. We cannot cross a divide while still
keeping a foot on both sides.
I am questioning those whose intent isn’t to strive for good, but to
explore and dwell in black. These are the people who make the world worse
for everyone else. Good people are respectful, kind, and have genuine
regard for others. Bad people don’t; they are basically selfish. And I’d go
so far as to say that good people are happy people, and selfish people
aren’t. That may seem simplistic, but not everything is rocket science:-)
|
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a genuine
regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I don’t care.
| |
What about
those who do what a lot of people consider immoral, what about those who do
what a lot of people think is moral and a larger number of people thinks is
immoral?
|
If those actions infringe on the rights of others, then they should be stopped.
It doesn’t matter how many people believe anything. If freedoms are abridged,
then that is when action needs to occur (and what governments are for).
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--snip--
| |
| |
Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for
thievery?
|
Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with
real life situations. Vigilantism isn’t ideal, because there isn’t a
standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when the
law fails to bring about justice. Put it this way: I am more sympathetic to
a murderer who kills in cold blood the murderer of his young daughter who has
gotten off in a court of law on some technicality.
|
I’d be more sympathetic too, but they’re still a murderer. What about someone
who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to
escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but I’m
pretty sympathetic to their plight. Liberal thinking allows them to get off in
Court on occassions whereas Conservative thinking would send them to the chair.
| |
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will
suffice;-)
| |
Do you really think it’s up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone else
you are a murderer and you are ‘evil’. I don’t care if that person has just
stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament said an
‘eye for an eye’ rather than ‘a life for a stereo’.
|
I wouldn’t advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief.
|
If you shoot at someone and they die you are at best a manslaughterer and at
worst a murderer. The likely effect of shooting at someone is that they will be
seriously injured. That’s immoral in my books.
Incidentally I apply the same rule to people who drive dangerously and kill
someone but society as a whole doesn’t punish that sort of offense anywhere near
as heavily as I think it should. What do you think about the guy who kills a
young child because he was speeding ‘just’ 10mph above the speed limit? I call
him a manslaughterer.
| |
How do you feel about shootinging with the intent to wound?
|
I have minimal problem with that provided it’s reasonable force.
| |
Guns are all we
really have now to stop thieves, and they are crude and don’t do what we
necessarily what them to do, but I’m sure that soon we will have weapons
which will be able to incapacitate without lethal force. I believe a citizen
has every right to zap a fleeing thief.
|
Zapping is fine by me. So long as you’re not permanently maiming someone for a
property crime I’m happy enough to have them hurt a bit.
--snip--
| |
| |
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a
genuine regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I don’t care.
|
Damn typos.
| |
| |
What about
those who do what a lot of people consider immoral, what about those who do
what a lot of people think is moral and a larger number of people thinks is
immoral?
|
If those actions infringe on the rights of others, then they should be
stopped. It doesn’t matter how many people believe anything. If freedoms are
abridged, then that is when action needs to occur (and what governments are
for).
JOHN
|
But not all illegal/’immoral’ things infringe anyone else’s rights. Some
examples of activities that don’t harm anyone and yet are banned are narcotics
use, bigamy and assisted suicide. Does that mean society at large through the
goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--snip--
| |
| |
Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for
thievery?
|
Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with
real life situations. Vigilantism isn’t ideal, because there isn’t a
standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when
the law fails to bring about justice. Put it this way: I am more
sympathetic to a murderer who kills in cold blood the murderer of his young
daughter who has gotten off in a court of law on some technicality.
|
I’d be more sympathetic too, but they’re still a murderer.
|
Agreed. There are still consequences for actions.
| |
What about someone
who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to
escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but I’m
pretty sympathetic to their plight. Liberal thinking allows them to get off
in Court on occassions whereas Conservative thinking would send them to the
chair.
|
Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives
who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example.
| |
| |
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will
suffice;-)
| |
Do you really think it’s up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone
else you are a murderer and you are ‘evil’. I don’t care if that person has
just stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament said
an ‘eye for an eye’ rather than ‘a life for a stereo’.
|
I wouldn’t advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief.
|
If you shoot at someone and they die you are at best a manslaughterer and at
worst a murderer. The likely effect of shooting at someone is that they will
be seriously injured. That’s immoral in my books.
|
Well, you are certainly taking a risk by shooting someone to merely injure them.
The law would assume that you are trying to kill them AFAIK. Now, I assume your
statement here is still talking about a fleeing thief, and not an intruder in
your home where you feel your family’s safety is in jeopardy, nes pas?
| |
Incidentally I apply the same rule to people who drive dangerously and kill
someone but society as a whole doesn’t punish that sort of offense anywhere
near as heavily as I think it should. What do you think about the guy who
kills a young child because he was speeding ‘just’ 10mph above the speed
limit? I call him a manslaughterer.
|
I concur.
| |
| |
How do you feel about shootinging with the intent to wound?
|
I have minimal problem with that provided it’s reasonable force.
| |
Guns are all we
really have now to stop thieves, and they are crude and don’t do what we
necessarily what them to do, but I’m sure that soon we will have weapons
which will be able to incapacitate without lethal force. I believe a
citizen has every right to zap a fleeing thief.
|
Zapping is fine by me. So long as you’re not permanently maiming someone for
a property crime I’m happy enough to have them hurt a bit.
|
I think we are pretty close in POV on this issue, Tim.
| |
--snip--
| |
| |
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a
genuine regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I don’t care.
|
Damn typos.
|
No, I wasn’t commenting on your typo. I really meant it. People can think
whatever they want. I’m concerned about what they do.
| |
| |
| |
What about
those who do what a lot of people consider immoral, what about those who do
what a lot of people think is moral and a larger number of people thinks is
immoral?
|
If those actions infringe on the rights of others, then they should be
stopped. It doesn’t matter how many people believe anything. If freedoms
are abridged, then that is when action needs to occur (and what governments
are for).
JOHN
|
But not all illegal/’immoral’ things infringe anyone else’s rights. Some
examples of activities that don’t harm anyone and yet are banned are
narcotics use,
|
Disagree. Junkies are a terrible burden on society, not to mention the
destruction they reak in the lives of their families. I understand that some
people are able to use drugs recreationally, but the vast majority of drug users
completely lose control and become addicts, and they all but render that point
mute.
I would argue against bigamy for legal reasons, not moral ones. It is a clear
violation of the marriage contract. As for polygamy; I’m not against the
concept per se, I just don’t think it is a good idea for my society.
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock themselves
out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
| |
Does that mean society at large
through the goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
|
Societal constructs are the result of the sensibilities of its citizens. In our
society, we ban polygamy. Other countries allow it. Fine. Since we are a free
society, one can either leave the country, or work to change the society to
one’s own liking.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--snip--
| |
| |
What about someone
who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to
escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but I’m
pretty sympathetic to their plight. Liberal thinking allows them to get off
in Court on occassions whereas Conservative thinking would send them to the
chair.
|
Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives
who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example.
|
Yes I don’t doubt it but I think that the basic Conservative position (as
opposed to the position of Conservatives) is against it. It becomes an
‘exception to the rule’ rather than part of a grey spread.
| |
| |
| |
As for theives: no death penalty; the cutting off of their hands will
suffice;-)
| |
Do you really think it’s up to the homeowner to decide that the person
stealing their tv is going to come back and do it again, next time using
violence, and should be killed to prevent that from happening? Sounds like
presentience to me which is beyond the mortal ken.
In my books if you kill someone who is not directly threatening someone
else you are a murderer and you are ‘evil’. I don’t care if that person
has just stolen your tv or not. Even the rather bloodthirsty Old Testament
said an ‘eye for an eye’ rather than ‘a life for a stereo’.
|
I wouldn’t advocate the intentional attempt to kill a fleeing thief.
|
If you shoot at someone and they die you are at best a manslaughterer and at
worst a murderer. The likely effect of shooting at someone is that they will
be seriously injured. That’s immoral in my books.
|
Well, you are certainly taking a risk by shooting someone to merely injure
them. The law would assume that you are trying to kill them AFAIK. Now, I
assume your statement here is still talking about a fleeing thief, and not an
intruder in your home where you feel your family’s safety is in jeopardy, nes
pas?
|
Yes. I’m still talking about the thief rather than the extremely rare attacker.
| |
| |
| |
| |
How do you deal with people who are good, respectful, kind and have a
genuine regard for others but do thinks which you consider to be immoral?
|
They can think whatever they want! I don’t care.
|
Damn typos.
|
No, I wasn’t commenting on your typo. I really meant it. People can think
whatever they want. I’m concerned about what they do.
|
On that I think I share your view although I’m probably more accepting of
mitigating circumstances when they can drastically alter a person’s thinking.
| |
| |
But not all illegal/’immoral’ things infringe anyone else’s rights. Some
examples of activities that don’t harm anyone and yet are banned are
narcotics use,
|
Disagree. Junkies are a terrible burden on society, not to mention the
destruction they reak in the lives of their families. I understand that some
people are able to use drugs recreationally, but the vast majority of drug
users completely lose control and become addicts, and they all but render
that point mute.
|
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users don’t cause much harm to society
(and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as alcohol). Heroin
and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really high danger levels)
account for a very small portion of total illegal narcotics use. On the whole it
seems to be a combination of political inertia and misinformation that keep any
sort of change from happening rather than good evidence.
| |
I would argue against bigamy for legal reasons, not moral ones. It is a
clear violation of the marriage contract. As for polygamy; I’m not against
the concept per se, I just don’t think it is a good idea for my society.
|
But the legal contract is there to reinforce a social more rather than for any
harm reduction so its restriction is thus an arbitrart Governmental restriction
on people’s rights.
| |
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves which
is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their right to kill
themselves.
It seems to me that it’s an immoral society which won’t let a terminally ill
elderly person whose life is spent in great pain to end that pain at the expense
of a few months life.
| |
| |
Does that mean society at large
through the goverment is behaving immorally by banning them?
|
Societal constructs are the result of the sensibilities of its citizens. In
our society, we ban polygamy. Other countries allow it. Fine. Since we are
a free society, one can either leave the country, or work to change the
society to one’s own liking.
JOHN
|
As I’m sure you know movement of people is not really much of an option in the
current world climate so I don’t consider that a vaild option (if people could
move as freely as money I would but they can’t). Yes they can work to change the
system but I’m not questioning whether or not the system should be changed, but
whether the current system is moral.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users don’t cause much harm to society
(and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as alcohol). Heroin
and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really high danger levels)
account for a very small portion of total illegal narcotics use. On the whole
it seems to be a combination of political inertia and misinformation that
keep any sort of change from happening rather than good evidence.
|
I’d say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with people
mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and mainlining
it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who actually needs it
to control crippling pain is automatically at risk for extreme violence.
Oh, and cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic, and alcohol is a depressant.
| |
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves
which is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their right
to kill themselves.
|
You’re assuming that suicide is legal to begin with. In many parts of the US,
it is patently illegal to take any life, even your own. In days of old, it was
even a capital offense in some areas. Yes, that means that if you try to kill
yourself, fail, and change your mind about any further attempts...the legal
system could effectively force it on you if/when they ever found out. Makes no
sense at all, which is why most, if not all, of these states have struck that
punishment from the books (though not necessarily the illegality of the act
itself).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
The vast majority of illegal narcotics users don’t cause much harm to
society (and certainly no more than users of legal narcotics such as
alcohol). Heroin and crack cocaine (being the two with the really, really
high danger levels) account for a very small portion of total illegal
narcotics use. On the whole it seems to be a combination of political
inertia and misinformation that keep any sort of change from happening
rather than good evidence.
|
I’d say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with
people mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and
mainlining it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who
actually needs it to control crippling pain is automatically at risk for
extreme violence.
|
I dug up some statistics (page
288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of drug
users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about high-risk
people (those whose actions are a danger to someone other than themself) we’re
looking at a fraction of a third, which is a small portion. In most other
developed countries I’ve seen statistics for the percentage of drug users using
something other than marijuana is even lower.
And to anticipate any arguments that marijuana is harmful (I have no doubts that
it is) I did say ‘no more than users of legal narcotics’. Yes marijuana has its
problems but I’m yet to see anything from a reputable source suggestion they’re
in any way worse than those associated with tobacco or alcohol.
I should also note that crime associated with drug use is not neccessarily a
result of the drug use so much as a result of its illegal nature. If one could
get a recreational prescription to Oxycontin one wouldn’t need to mug anyone. It
also strikes me as a very inefficient way of an addict to get a hold of their
drugs. Robbing a pharmacy would have much better yields. Are you sure it’s
really that common or is it just overreported because of the unpleasantess?
That means that most governments are making it illegal for people to use
something they enjoy for no good reason. Furthermore by making things illegal
(as opposed to hard to get, for example) they are helping to increase robbery
and property crime. Is this the action of a moral government and/or legal
system?
| |
Oh, and cocaine is a stimulant, not a narcotic, and alcohol is a depressant.
|
Yes. I double checked and sure enough you are right. The wikipedia article does
state, however, that ‘illegal narcotic’ is commonly used by paypersons to refer
to illegal drugs in general, including by law enforcement.
| |
| |
The people most in need of assisted suicide are unable to do so themselves
which is why they need assistance. The Governement is restricting their
right to kill themselves.
|
You’re assuming that suicide is legal to begin with. In many parts of the
US, it is patently illegal to take any life, even your own. In days of old,
it was even a capital offense in some areas. Yes, that means that if you try
to kill yourself, fail, and change your mind about any further attempts...the
legal system could effectively force it on you if/when they ever found out.
Makes no sense at all, which is why most, if not all, of these states have
struck that punishment from the books (though not necessarily the illegality
of the act itself).
|
Well that takes immorality of law to a whole new level. I’d heard rumours about
that sort of law in the US but was never sure if it was an urban myth or not.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
I dug up some statistics (page
288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of
drug users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about
high-risk people (those whose actions are a danger to someone other than
themself) we’re looking at a fraction of a third, which is a small portion.
In most other developed countries I’ve seen statistics for the percentage of
drug users using something other than marijuana is even lower.
|
Yeah, but if the percentage of people who posed an immediate risk to people
other than themselves was significantly higher, there would be more political
capital to do something about it. Once the public perceives a lack of risk to
themselves, they are less thrilled about spending lots of money to combat a
situation that they see as “mostly resolved”.
| |
And to anticipate any arguments that marijuana is harmful (I have no doubts
that it is) I did say ‘no more than users of legal narcotics’. Yes marijuana
has its problems but I’m yet to see anything from a reputable source
suggestion they’re in any way worse than those associated with tobacco or
alcohol.
|
The only hard statistic I’ve seen so far is that one joint = one beer in terms
of how impaired it makes you as a driver. I would have figured it’d be higher
than that, as most people that I’ve witnessed don’t show any signs of impairment
from a single beer.
| |
I should also note that crime associated with drug use is not neccessarily a
result of the drug use so much as a result of its illegal nature. If one
could get a recreational prescription to Oxycontin one wouldn’t need to mug
anyone. It also strikes me as a very inefficient way of an addict to get a
hold of their drugs. Robbing a pharmacy would have much better yields. Are
you sure it’s really that common or is it just overreported because of the
unpleasantess?
|
Oxycontin is a known high-risk drug, so pharmacies probably take extra measures
to ensure that it does not get stolen from them (including, I would assume, not
storing it in quantity, but probably just getting in enough to fill known
upcoming prescriptions), though I’m sure it still happens. This drives the
street price up (IIRC, the expose I watched on it suggested that a single pill
can fetch $600-1000 each). The people who mug prescription users for the
pills aren’t doing it so much for personal use as they are to harvest a supply
to sell on the black market. One individual they cited has her husband drive in
a separate car behind her, idling in the parking lot while she goes in to get
her prescription, and waiting with cel phone ready in case anyone does anything
when she’s returning to her car. Then he follows her home to make sure she’s
not being tailed by anyone. All this just to get her a legal supply of pills
that prevent her from being in excruciating pain.
The thing is, Oxycontin use is very rare, and once you’ve been mugged once for
it, I’m sure there’s plenty of incentive to adjust your routine to prevent a
second occurance. I have personally only met one person who positively
identified him/herself as a prescription user, and have never heard of any
muggings through regular news channels.
| |
That means that most governments are making it illegal for people to use
something they enjoy for no good reason. Furthermore by making things illegal
(as opposed to hard to get, for example) they are helping to increase robbery
and property crime. Is this the action of a moral government and/or legal
system?
|
“No good reason” is highly debatable. As far as I know, marijuana use has a low
incidence of related crimes (it’s in plentiful supply, many people grow their
own crop for personal use, it’s not horribly expensive, and it has low enough
withdrawal symptoms that users aren’t constantly chasing after the next hit).
Stuff like Oxycontin is an exponential-use drug. The more you use it, the more
you need to use it, and withdrawal is reportedly bad to experience (there’s a
Texan clinic that avoids that problem by inducing a coma until the drug has
cleared out of your system, since it’s a physical addiction and the cravings
will mostly go away once you’re clean). Therefore, even if it were legal and in
plentiful supply, you’d eventually have people who couldn’t go to work because
they wouldn’t be able to wait more than a couple of hours before taking another
massive hit. Also, all you have to do is ask your local ER about drug overdose
cases to see “good reason”. Marijuana is supposed to be no worse than alcohol,
but one is illegal and the other isn’t. I suspect part of that is the fact that
marijuana use was more contained when it was outlawed, whereas we have
Prohibition to show how well it worked for alcohol. And tobacco was a staple
industry of early America, which makes it that much harder to illegalize (though
some inroads have been made by way of making it illegal in restaurants, bars,
and public buildings in most States). Between those three, it’s probably
difficult, but not impossible, to overdose. Once you get beyond them,
however...
| |
Yes. I double checked and sure enough you are right. The wikipedia article
does state, however, that ‘illegal narcotic’ is commonly used by paypersons
to refer to illegal drugs in general, including by law enforcement.
|
Yes, which is why many law enforcement agencies will have a “narcotics”
devision. And this is why the medical profession prefers the less easily
confused term “opiates”, since all true narcotics are apparently opium
derivatives or produce similar results.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In many parts of the
US, it is patently illegal to take any life, even your own. In days of old,
it was even a capital offense in some areas. Yes, that means that if you try
to kill yourself, fail, and change your mind about any further attempts...the
legal system could effectively force it on you if/when they ever found out.
|
You’re correct, but that’s kind of a dumb law. There’s a ton of things that you
can do to yourself that you can’t do to others without consent, among which
tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious examples. Why
suicide should be afforded this mystical “thou shalt not” status makes no sense
to me, assuming that the individual is of sound mental capacity, of course.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
You’re correct, but that’s kind of a dumb law. There’s a ton of things that
you can do to yourself that you can’t do to others without consent, among
which tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious
examples. Why suicide should be afforded this mystical “thou shalt not”
status makes no sense to me, assuming that the individual is of sound mental
capacity, of course.
|
The Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States government says that it’s
wrong to kill anyone, therefore it should be illegal. That does, of course,
lead to the obvious question of why they thought it should be a capital crime.
I mean, as I understand it, murder in every US State is charged on behalf of the
People, whereas attempted murder is charged on behalf of the intended victim.
If you were the intended victim, this, as I understand it, gives you the right
to decline to press charges (once you chose to go ahead with them, you may or
may not be able to drop the charges). As an attempted suicide, you apparently
did not get the right to decline on behalf of the intended victim (yourself), or
pretty much the only people who would go ahead with trial would be the few who
really did still want to commit suicide, but realized that they wouldn’t be able
to bring themselves to go through with it (in which case, the capital punishment
gives them an easy out).
It’s certainly one of the more insane stupid laws that have been on the books in
the US, but there are a lot of other more mundane ones that simply baffle the
mind. I recall there being one city in the southwestern states where there’s a
$100 fine for detonating a nuclear device within the city limits. There are
other places where you are still required to fire a shotgun in the air once
every mile if you’re driving a car (so as to warn horse-owners that you’re
coming in one of those infernal contraptions that will scare the bejeezus out of
their horses)...but you’re far more likely to get prosecuted for public
endangerment and creating a public nuisance if you do than for disobeying a
valid law on the books.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
I don’t know that it’s as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If someone
is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant agony with
no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that person to
continue to suffer until the reaper shows up?
It’s considered humane to euthanize a wounded and suffering animal with no hope
of recovery, yet it’s murder to assist a wounded and suffering person in the
same way?
I’m not sure I can reconcile that, to be honest.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
This is bad. If people wants to kill themselves, they should knock
themselves out. Assisting them is not noble and compassionate IMO.
|
I don’t know that it’s as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If
someone is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant
agony with no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that
person to continue to suffer until the reaper shows up?
|
It’s not in that situation, either. It is noble and compassionate to try and
comfort and help provide meaning to one in pain and agony.
Further, not helping someone kill themselves can hardly be characterized as
“forcing” them to live, Dave! Blame the person’s mother!
| |
It’s considered humane to euthanize a wounded and suffering animal with no
hope of recovery, yet it’s murder to assist a wounded and suffering person in
the same way?
I’m not sure I can reconcile that, to be honest.
|
For the simple reason that we are NOT animals! We are humans. That is a HUGE
distinction. I know that there are those who believe that we are simply
another animal on this mother earth, and this is where that kind of thinking
leads one. It is specious that we share 80%+ of our DNA with pond scum, Dave!
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
Vegetable? Mineral?
;-)
Tim
| | | | | | |
