The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

How noble that you're willing to die for someone else's freedom to be an idiot.

In the meantime, there is a certain segment of the population (of which I am one) who refuse to be endangered as collateral damage because of morons.

Legalize drugs. Hell, legalize murder. Combatting murder costs countless dollars across the country. Legalize rape. Child molestation. Dispense of laws all together because it costs money.

And should you feel inclined to argue against those, well, let me direct you back to your own argument:

Originally posted by Master Crimson
When existing in a free society, there will be dangers.

Edit: For the record, I find your idea of a free society to be worse than anything posted by Darth Sexy.

HEY!

Originally posted by Gideon
How noble that you're willing to die for someone else's freedom to be an idiot.

In the meantime, there is a certain segment of the population (of which I am one) who refuse to be endangered as collateral damage because of morons.

Legalize drugs. Hell, legalize murder. Combatting murder costs countless dollars across the country. Legalize rape. Child molestation. Dispense of laws all together because it costs money.

And should you feel inclined to argue against those, well, let me direct you back to your own argument:

Edit: For the record, I find your idea of a free society to be worse than anything posted by Darth Sexy.

There's a difference between drug use and things such as murder, rape, and child molestation. Why? These things directly harm another individual. To that degree, we cannot completely endorse freedom at the expense of safety; however, drug use, while it sets a dangerous 'precedent', does not harm anyone other than the individual doing the drugs. And we can control the things it potentially sets. We can create tighter laws regarding driving under the influence and such.

Besides, the legalization of drugs will have more of a positive influence than a negative. The vast damage it will have upon terrorist organizations can be used as a part of avoiding a war, and the damage it will have upon organized crime will similarly result in overall lowering levels of murder and such.

Sexy; I think an individual who becomes addicted to drugs is not necessarily entirely responsible for it, and thus the possibility of rehabilitation exists, but, ultimately, the desire from stopping it must come from within him. I don't think the concept of societal responsibility is important within it, considering the only thing the individual harms is himself. And I believe people know what is good for them more than anyone else, anyhow.

Ah, but that's where you're dead wrong.

You want to live in a "free society", where people are allowed to make any decision they wish, regardless of consequences. The dangers are simply something that we good citizens simply have to endure for the sake of the stupid, the deluded, and the weak.

You went about this argument entirely wrong. You want a free society? Fantastic. But the problem with that is that you don't get to set qualifiers to fit your interpretation of what is good and what isn't.

Originally posted by Master Crimson
When existing in a free society, there will be dangers.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[...] however, drug use, while it sets a dangerous 'precedent', does not harm anyone other than the individual doing the drugs.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
There's a difference between drug use and things such as murder, rape, and child molestation. Why? These things directly harm another individual. To that degree, we cannot completely endorse freedom at the expense of safety; however, drug use, while it sets a dangerous 'precedent', does not harm anyone other than the individual doing the drugs. And we can control the things it potentially sets. We can create tighter laws regarding driving under the influence and such.

Sexy; I think an individual who becomes addicted to drugs is not necessarily entirely responsible for it, and thus the possibility of rehabilitation exists, but, ultimately, the desire from stopping it must come from within him. I don't think the concept of societal responsibility is important within it, considering the only thing the individual harms is himself. And I believe people know what is good for them more than anyone else, anyhow.

That is an incredibly [i]wrong[/i[ thing to say. One person's addiction to drugs can toss an entire family into chaos and distress.

MC, you don't understand the idea of a "free society", and you're further proving that you think people are inherently good. People doing what they want when they want never turns out good. There is nothing suggesting people are inherently good, or rational, etc.

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.

I agree, people should be only concerned with themselves. No-one has any right to tell another what to do. Heck, y-know, I'm so impressed with this that I'm foing to incorperate this into my own life. I've just had a baby, but will I raise him? NO!! Who am I to tell a human-being how to live, to rape his freedom because of MY views? A friend of mine is trying to kill himself, but will I try to stop him? Will I even try to convince him not to? NO!!! Who am I to force my ideas upon him through my mental superiority?

Right?

WRONG!!!! The law's and the government who create those laws are for the protection to the people, as elected by the people. If you want to go live in a cave glorifying in your 'freedom' go ahead. In the end, the laws in place are put there to protect people, because people should try to protect other people, even from themselves. Any person who takes your advice and doesn't try to help is not only a cowardly little jerk, but a morally evil person.

A lot of drugs have been proven to be harmful to a person, both mentally and physically. Standing by while someone inflicts that upon themselves is just the same as if that person was taking a switch-blade to their arm. Now I'm in favour of moral relativism, because nothing is inherently good or evil, but in 99.99% of the time, self-mutilation is extremely bad/evil, not only harmful to yourself, but to those who care for you.

/end rant

^surprisingly logical

I'm on mind-steriods.awecraz

I'm partially on Darth Sexy's side there again. Moral relativism opens the door for people to excuse their actions on personal beliefs. And, actually, I think no one here is a moral relativist, which makes the argument even more stupid.

You can never be fully on my side can you? It HAS to be partially. Douche

Originally posted by Gideon
Ah, but that's where you're dead wrong.

You want to live in a "free society", where people are allowed to make any decision they wish, regardless of consequences. The dangers are simply something that we good citizens simply have to endure for the sake of the stupid, the deluded, and the weak.

You went about this argument entirely wrong. You want a free society? Fantastic. But the problem with that is that you don't get to set qualifiers to fit your interpretation of what is good and what isn't.

I didn't say we should ignore the ramifications of a certain actions, merely that we should look at the direct ones rather than the 'precedents'. Murder should be illegalized because it harms someone. Usage of drugs? Not necessarily. Considering most people are capable of employing restraint and do not degenerate into hardcore addictions, then usage of drugs (chiefly private) does not necessarily harm anyone. By putting freedom first but still marrying it with safety and monitoring what standard it possibly sets, we can create a better society, IMO.

Originally posted by Eminence
Tell that to Mexico.

The marketing and dealing of drugs gives violent criminal organizations the ability to thrive, and thus this harms people. However, the very nature of drugs is not what causes this harm.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Drug use leads to abuse which leads to crimes. To deter that, we ban drugs altogether, so it minimizes the chances for abuse and crimes. Nobody gives a shit about freedom if safety doesn't come first.

Not necessarily. Abuse and criminality isn't dependent purely on the drugs; it's dependent upon the way the individual interacts with them, based on his psyche. The problem isn't with the drugs.

People will always have a desire for freedom and will want to experience a form of stimulation; thus, there will always be a market for drugs, despite attempts to control people's impulses and desire for freedom. Preventing drug usage is damn near impossible.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

And what are you basing this nonsense off of?

Logic and facts.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Oh right, deniability. I was waiting for it. This is double standards at its finest. So ultimately the desire of stopping comes from the individual.. As in a personal choice. But when it comes to crime and other forms of evil, it is society's fault that the person committed said evil. Sound about right?

Not really. I don't think an individual is completely responsible for degenerating into a spiral of self-destruction. However, you must understand that his life still belongs to him. The concept of personal vs. societal responsibility is completely irrelevant in this case.

As for 'stopping'? I don't think people should be forced to adapt; the individual is capable of choosing what type of life he wants to lead, based on the way his psyche formed. It's none of our business to intervene in that. Bringing the concept of whose responsibility it is to this business is entirely pointless.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You can never be fully on my side can you? It HAS to be partially. Douche

There's a difference: my morals do not stem completely from my faith in God and belief in Christianity. We Christians have a notorious history of corruption and moral decay that has pierced the centuries. I acknowledge that people of all creeds, race, sexual preference, and religions can live moral, good lives without faith in God.

Originally posted by Gideon
There's a difference: my morals do not stem completely from my faith in God and belief in Christianity. We Christians have a notorious history of corruption and moral decay that has pierced the centuries. I acknowledge that people of all creeds, race, sexual preference, and religions can live moral, good lives without faith in God.

I absolutely agree. Where and when did I ever state otherwise? The only reason I became religious is because the religious Judaic views coincided with my secular views.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Logic and facts.

No, not at all.

You still don't understand, do you? In one post, you're a proponent for a "free society" and conclude that people have to assume the disastrous risks and consequences for the choices that other people make, citing it as a necessary evil. And then in another post, you're condemning murder, rape, and child molestation -- in short, you're imposing your own moral code -- trying to qualify what is and what is not a free society.

It's an inept argument, not worthy of you. You're done, MC.

Originally posted by Gideon
I'm partially on Darth Sexy's side there again. Moral relativism opens the door for people to excuse their actions on personal beliefs. And, actually, I think no one here is a moral relativist, which makes the argument even more stupid.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I didn't say we should ignore the ramifications of a certain actions, merely that we should look at the direct ones rather than the 'precedents'. Murder should be illegalized because it harms someone. Usage of drugs? Not necessarily. Considering most people are capable of employing restraint and do not degenerate into hardcore addictions, then usage of drugs (chiefly private) does not necessarily harm anyone. By putting freedom first but still marrying it with safety and monitoring what standard it possibly sets, we can create a better society, IMO.

As for 'stopping'? I don't think people should be forced to adapt; the individual is capable of choosing what type of life he wants to lead, based on the way his psyche formed. It's none of our business to intervene in that. Bringing the concept of whose responsibility it is to this business is entirely pointless.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I agree, people should be only concerned with themselves. No-one has any right to tell another what to do. Heck, y-know, I'm so impressed with this that I'm foing to incorperate this into my own life. I've just had a baby, but will I raise him? NO!! Who am I to tell a human-being how to live, to [b]rape his freedom because of MY views? A friend of mine is trying to kill himself, but will I try to stop him? Will I even try to convince him not to? NO!!! Who am I to force my ideas upon him through my mental superiority?[/B]

Oh, I think people must be presented with differing options to ensure the fact that they will make what they perceive to be the 'right' choice. But there is a level where you must stop. That is when you stop them. I think that if a friend of your's wants to commit suicide, then you should do everything possible to open the possibility of rehabilitation and life to him; but if he simply does not want to live, it is not up to you to decide for him.

Originally posted by Nephthys
WRONG!!!! The law's and the government who create those laws are for the protection to the people, as elected by the people. If you want to go live in a cave glorifying in your 'freedom' go ahead. In the end, the laws in place are put there to protect people, because people should try to protect other people, even from themselves. Any person who takes your advice and doesn't try to help is not only a cowardly little jerk, but a morally evil person.

Why am I in favor of potential rehabilitation? We should try to help to a certain degree. But when does it turn from attempting to help to forcing someone to conform to your moralistic standards?

Originally posted by Nephthys
A lot of drugs have been proven to be harmful to a person, both mentally and physically. Standing by while someone inflicts that upon themselves is just the same as if that person was taking a switch-blade to their arm. Now I'm in favour of moral relativism, because nothing is inherently good or evil, but in 99.99% of the time, self-mutilation is extremely bad/evil, not only harmful to yourself, but to those who care for you.

/end rant

We perceive pain and self-mutilation as a negative because of societal and cultural standards of good and evil. However, it cannot be substantiated as being universally immoral; thus, it is entirely dependent upon the individual's own personal morality and choices. Self-mutilation is not evil, but is possibly spurred by insanity; thus, the individual must be helped. But, again, to a certain point (unless that individual is deemed dangerous to other people, in which case it might have to be mandatory).

Edit: Okay, I gotta go now, so I'll get to all that tommorrow. But I've gotta ask: is there no one here who agrees on my positions regarding drugs?