Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What is stupid is saying "we can live in our little what if utopia if we abolish all of the things that make us humans". There is NOTHING indicating we CAN change humanity to your little utopia.
I don't think we'll ever achieve a utopia, certainly not any time soon. However, conservatives attempt to attack any desire for positive change and progress as being 'unrealistic' and 'excessively optimistic'. Throughout the course of history, people have consistently evolved from outdated and unjust moral values into better, more positive ones- the enlightenment, slavery, whatever. And then there were the so-called 'realistic' conservatives at the time who said that "things are never going to change. This is how humanity always was and how it always will be". Stop existing within what was- only be looking towards the future and attempting to change humanity and the world for the better can we do it, instead of being satisfied with the status quo or how things 'used to be'.
Does war, violence, and criminality makes us human? How about compassion, empathy, and a strive towards social justice? Is that not part of how humanity is composed? We can minimize the former, as can be seen by the way civilizations have consistently progressed away from militarism and glorification of war. Idealism and hope can bring forth change, and it continuously did. Only the strive for a utopia and dissatisfaction with the status quo can lead to an ultimately better existence.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Its not a societal value. It's called poor moral values by the individual and as a result, a poor choice.
Here is how morality forms: an individual is imbued with certain personal traits as a result of the way his environmental influences interact with his innate psyche. In accordance to these traits, that individual begins to view the world in a certain manner, and thus eventually develops and ideology and a view of the world. This is why people born to conservatives are more likely to be conservatives, and people born to liberals are more likely to be liberals; they are raised on differing moral values, and these values lead them to interpret the world in a different manner.
Someone who grows up in a violent, desperate place has differing traits and is thus more prone to violence himself. These traits lead 'morality' to be developed in a different manner. See?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
How about the fact that over 90% are guilty of their crimes? I think the number is in the upper 90s. And we DARE punish the individual for the exact same crime because anything else is a miscarriage of justice for the society, AND the victim's family. You seem to be unable to differentiate between a crime of premeditated murder and a death by the state after a trial. Big difference.
It is still a killing. It is not relevant how it comes to pass; if it contributes nothing to society at large and is a violent act, then it should be abolished. We are different from criminals. We maintain a higher moralistic ground and do not degenerate to their violent standards, regardless of how 'efficient' or 'just' it is. Surrendering to primal feelings of anger and vengeance is simply reducing ourselves to being nothing more than petty animals. In order to maintain our humanity and our societal standards, we must ascend beyond these feelings.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
We do revel in justice. And justice must happen before compassion.
Not mutually exclusive, again. An eye for an eye is not justice. It's a loss of humanity in order to gain a degree of immediate, self-destroying form of emotional gratification. It's barbaric and should be abolished.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I don't have faith in human's ability to reason and live the life of a what if utopia, and according to history and reality, neither do they. People live how they want, whether it's to work hard to make a living, or take the easy road and do shady things to make a living.
'Laws of history'? Alright, explain how we achieved any form of progress if we are fundamentally unreasonable beings incapable of achieving a utopia?
Back in the age of slavery, the blacks who attempted to resist white domination were perceived as being unrealistic. Conservatives said that races will always exploit inferior and more primitive races (nevermind that these things are subjective and relativistic in nature), and even liberals might have advised them to keep quiet; after all, resisting the regime paves the way for murder. But they did not give up. And then came the civil war, the liberation, the strive towards social liberty and equality. We achieved transcendence and progressed from how humanity 'always was'. How? We were not satisfied with the status quo. We wanted to create a utopia, even if we knew it would probably never come into pass.
In addition, crime is not necessarily easier than legitimate work. If an individual has to choose between, say, drug running and working in some manual construction job for equal pay, he will naturally choose the latter. Why? This is not because humans are fundamentally good. This is because crime paves the way for danger and the possibility of legal retribution, not to mention that nobody wants to perceive themselves as an immoral individual who harms society. And, hell, if an individual feels no guilt for crime, then either:
A. He is a sociopath.
B. His psyche formed in a manner that would make him into a violent and harmful individual who does not view these things as negative or unjust.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The leading cause of crime is poor moral values that result in poor choices. See white collar crimes.
But why do people have poor moral values? Now, that's something to think about. You do not choose your traits. You do not choose to be violent, aggressive, peaceful, vulgar, whatever. These traits lead to the forming of a morality and an ideology. This does not necessarily mean that you do not have some sort of ability to exist beyond these simple traits and ultimately form a differing morality, but still, you do not have completely personal control of the way your view of the world develops.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is why hard drugs shouldn't be legalized while marijuana should be, in the home, not in public.
So beer should be legalized (only at home, though!), but all other alcoholic drinks shouldn't be?
The usage of anything that is private and does not harm another individual has a degree of morality behind it, which is subjective and relativistic. Doing drugs should be a social liberty for any willing adult, in the same way that smoking and usage of alcohol is.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Out of the many that do hard drugs? I'd say the majority of them.
Then explain how the market keeps on thriving. If most people who do hardcore drugs became addicts who are likely to kill themselves or others, then why do people still engage in drugs?
In addition, there is level that exists outside of the drugs: personal tolerance and response to drugs, which is individualistic in nature. Most people who become addicted to drugs simply have a personality that must develop a dependence on something, whether it is sex, alcohol, whatever.
You are addicted to a load of things, but most of these addictions can be monitored and are not necessarily life-threatening. An extreme addiction is, similarly, an extreme response that is one of the potential dangers when you allow something. And even in the case of these addictions, then the individual must be monitored to prevent him from harming another individual, and he must have the choice to be capable of making up for his mistakes with the possibilities of rehabilitation. However, if he chooses to destroy his life? Fine then. It belongs to him.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except no ****ing drug users use a "careful measured usage of heroin". Where do these unrealistic ideas come from?
Fine, then. A huge amount of Americans have done drugs. While it's chiefly marijuana, a lot of people have done cocaine or heroin. How many of them do you think are addicts or have been addicts? Not a lot.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Drugs SHOULD be a legal. If you live in this country then you CAN be told what to do. Morality, good, evil are NOT subjective. Drugs are illegal because the use of drugs, especially outside the home, lead to other, more severe crimes. I can't even begin to understand this "no one has the right to tell you" logic.
Then who dictates what is right, wrong, decent, moral, etc? God? Who dictates what he says, then? The Bible? Who dictates that the Bible is a valid book and that faith in it is not a subjective thing?
Or maybe it's because 'well, the majority believe in it so it must be true!'. The majority also believe in abortion, gay marriage, and are generally liberal democrats. What the majority believe in is a standard that chiefly works for them; and because it works for them and is agreed upon, does it mean that people who do not agree with it must conform to their standards?
Prove drugs lead to more severe crimes. Out of the millions who do drugs, how many engage in crimes? A peaceful and intelligent individual, even if they do drugs, will not engage in violent criminal activities. Whether or not drugs lead to violence is dependent upon how they interact with the individual's existing traits; it's probably that a violent individual will eventually engage in some violent activity, and that drugs are only a trigger of getting to that point.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Freedom is not more important than safety because you can't have freedom without safety.
Actually, it doesn't work like that. Safety must come at the expense of freedom, and vice versa. Here are two extremes: 100% freedom, anarchy, where you can kill and do everything you desire according to your morality. Or, 100% safety, where you illegalize private transportation, sex, alcohol, freedom of speech, whatever. This form of mechanical society may function efficiently and with a lot of stability, but the people within it are incapable of expressing themselves and exist in a state of suffering and unhappiness.
First comes freedom, self expression, and happiness. Then comes safety.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh here we go, back to society, instead of poor moral values. A HUGE population of middle/upper class people smoke marijuana. It MUST be from violence, desperation, and a desire to escape! How dare you claim you believe in humanity, and then claim we are nothing but the product of society.
But are most addictions to drugs from the working class from the upper middle class? Aha. In the same way that most crimes are perpetrated by the lower class, then poverty sets the path for desperation and violence, which leads to the development of psychological traits that lead to the development of a harmful morality. See?
And you'd be surprised at the reasons a wealthy man might want to escape.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, it's not an immediate response to an external factor. That's why it's called "premeditated". Perhaps they want to make quick money. Perhaps they just don't like the person. See? Personal choices.
Why would they want to make quick money? Maybe because they are incapable of doing it in any other way? Or, wait a second, maybe they don't view violence as negative! And why is that? Could it be that they were exposed to violent and desperation and this affected the development of the psychology? Or could it be that they are simply insane?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Or we should realize that in our society, most people choose NOT to commit crimes, including the impoverished ones. That's a CLEAR sign of personal choice and not retarded outside influences.
... poverty is not the only factor. The factor of individual traits, and, of course, the existing factor of personal choice exists as well.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
As a fiscal conservative, I happen to believe our system is the best on the planet, but that's my opinion. And people will ALWAYS turn out differently, whether it's in accordance to society or not. So don't give me this excuse that "if there wasn't (insert excuse or ism here), people would be good", because you're again basing this on nothing.
I am basing it on psychology and logic. The way you develop is determined by your environmental influences. You would turn out differently if you were raised in a communist country. See?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
People that commit crimes aren't the majority so where are you getting this "we should change society" idea from? No, we should change the moral values of the individuals.
Which is impossible. The individual's moral values is formed by his interpretation of the world, which is formed by his psychological build. The only way to change him is to change the environmental influences.
By understanding why crimes are perpetrated, we can understand how can we change our society for the better and result in more effective and humane reductions of crime.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, it's justice.
Yes, barbaric, outdated violence to satisfy petty emotions is justice.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
How are they two different circumstances? The emotional tragedy is greater in 1, which is why the family wants 2 to happen. You're proving my point.
But by leading to 2, you place the other family in the same circumstance as family 1. What point is there to feed the cycle of violence and suffering when you can break out of it it, huh?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I never claimed they should never be taken into consideration, don't put words in my text. I claimed that you have no basis on the idea that it's societal influences that play THE role in choices, and not poor moral quality or the actual choices themselves. You LOVE playing the "victim" card. I'm very skeptical of people who always claim victim.
Do you choose the way your psychological build is form? Of course not. Ask any decent psychologist. Thus, you can't have full control upon the way you interpret reality and the way your morality forms.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
We will never have a perfect society. We will never have this utopia that gives philosophy majors a hard on. We will never be able to please everyone at the same time. Someone is always going to be left out. Your ideas aren't realistic.
That's what they said back before the enlightenment, I'm sure. 'Religion always dominated our society! Attempting to change it is illogical and unrealistic!'.
Humanity has constantly progressed since the dawn of time. No, we will never have a utopia, but a desire for a utopia is another part of why we are humans. And only through that did we ever reach change. And now, you must stop living in the past and understanding that your beliefs are far from the realistic pragmatism you tell yourself so you can sleep well. Surrendering to primal feelings and satisfaction with a relentlessly flawed status quo is simply stupid.
The only one I can think of is that taxing marijuana would definitely help the economy and keep the money out of the hands of drug dealers.
However, I concur. I'm okay with friends who take a puff socially at a party like once or twice a month... but avid potheads really just piss me off because they're so damned lazy.
Why is life nothing like Pineapple Express?
Originally posted by Gideon
I have a difficult time with the notion of legalizing drugs. The last thing we need is to breed a new generation of potheads; killing braincell after braincell, one by one.No, keep them illegal. There isn't a convincing argument to be made for them.
People who become potheads choose to do so. I think that people should be concerned about what happens to themselves, not others. If someone chooses to destroy themselves, then let them do so; they're the only ones capable of knowing what is good for them, and besides, their life belongs exclusively to them.
An addiction to drugs is a highly extreme response that is generally dependent upon the individual's already formed psyche.
And by the legalization (and nationalization) of the drug industry, not only can we create a better functioning economy, but we can create a highly effective method of combating both organized crime and terrorist organization. Plus, we'd have an easier time monitoring addictions and people will be able to get rehabilitation more easily and effectively.
Originally posted by Captain REX
The only one I can think of is that taxing marijuana would definitely help the economy and keep the money out of the hands of drug dealers.However, I concur. I'm okay with friends who take a puff socially at a party like once or twice a month... but avid potheads really just piss me off because they're so damned lazy.
Why is life nothing like Pineapple Express?
In His endeavour to create the ultimate human specimen, God gave me a certain set of quirks when it comes to these sort of issues. Though I enjoy a distinguished social life and one of the most popular people at my school, I've never smoked, drank, or indulged in use of drugs.
I consider those sort of things to be social crutches: used by the inferior, the weak, the socially inept to compensate for their deficits. I've seen friends of mine transformed from relatively upstanding people into morons who like to get trashed every day so they'll stay relevant in the public spectacle. Meanwhile, these fools have crowned me to be one of their kings, and yet I don't do any of them.
So all that is to say that a.) I am brilliant and b.) I view drug use to be extremely filthy. Particularly when the ones who use them are the mega-Christians.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]People who become potheads choose to do so. I think that people should be concerned about what happens to themselves, not others. If someone chooses to destroy themselves, then let them do so; they're the only ones capable of knowing what is good for them, and besides, their life belongs exclusively to them.An addiction to drugs is a highly extreme response that is generally dependent upon the individual's already formed psyche.
And by the legalization (and nationalization) of the drug industry, not only can we create a better functioning economy, but we can create a highly effective method of combating both organized crime and terrorist organization. Plus, we'd have an easier time monitoring addictions and people will be able to get rehabilitation more easily and effectively. [/B]
Your argument falls apart in the first sentence. Misuse of alcohol, for example, has caused countless deaths over the centuries. A friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver on the highway. Did she accept the consequences for his actions? Are we obligated to assume the risks for the sake of the minority?
Hardly. Perhaps you'll change your mind when you're on the receiving end of a four ton vehicle manipulated by an intoxicated fool.
I'll be sure to print this argument out and nail it to your coffin.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
People who become potheads choose to do so. I think that people should be concerned about what happens to themselves, not others. If someone chooses to destroy themselves, then let them do so; they're the only ones capable of knowing what is good for them, and besides, their life belongs exclusively to them.An addiction to drugs is a highly extreme response that is generally dependent upon the individual's already formed psyche.
And by the legalization (and nationalization) of the drug industry, not only can we create a better functioning economy, but we can create a highly effective method of combating both organized crime and terrorist organization. Plus, we'd have an easier time monitoring addictions and people will be able to get rehabilitation more easily and effectively.
Originally posted by Gideon
Your argument falls apart in the first sentence. Misuse of alcohol, for example, has caused countless deaths over the centuries. A friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver on the highway. Did she accept the consequences for his actions? Are we obligated to assume the risks for the sake of the minority?
When existing in a free society, there will be dangers. This is simply how things function; a more free society is less safe and vice versa. I personally choose to accept the potential risks of freedom, because there is nothing more important than that value.
I think laws regarding harmful usage of alcohol and drugs (drunk driving) should be particularly tight. For example, highly violent locations like night clubs should be tightly monitored. First of all, irresponsibility and irrationality is not entirely dependent on alcohol and other intoxicating substances; its interaction with an individual's traits are. Thus, it's very plausible that a drunk driver will find some other form of dangerous activity to indulge in, outside of alcohol.
Originally posted by Gideon
Hardly. Perhaps you'll change your mind when you're on the receiving end of a four ton vehicle manipulated by an intoxicated fool.
Risks of freedom. And that intoxicated ass should be very strictly punished in an attempt to monitor the risks and such.
Sexy- I think that a life-threatening addiction to drugs is generally dependent not entirely upon them, but also on the individual using them. This is why I believe in the concept of rehabilitation; if an individual does not want to destroy their lives, then they should have the ability to escape from drugs. People know what is good for them, and if they choose to die, so be it. This has nothing to do with personal, societal responsibility, whatever; so long as the individual affects only himself, then society has no business intervening.
I think legalizing drugs is both an effective way of non-violent warfare and stimulating the economy. Not only will it contribute to the ultimate freedom of our society, but it's very efficient from a purely pragmatic point of perspective.
This is just the point. You seem to think that when an individual does something bad, it's because of society (further proving that you think people are inherently good). When someone does something like harmless drugs, it's the person's choice. You can't have it both ways MC. And there's enough drug abuse in this country already. Legalizing them will boost the economy, and kill more people/send others into rehab.
What if an individual does drugs and then robs someone while under the influence? Is it his fault or is it society's? Or is it the drugs?