Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Main Floor > News

News This is the forum where we post hard news and current events. If it is outside the box then that is where it goes. If it is your opinion, please write in the Op/Ed forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-30-2017, 10:52 AM   #1
A.T. Hagan
Your "Crazy Town" reporter
 
A.T. Hagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North/Central Florida
Posts: 12,831
Thanks: 2,861
Thanked 7,126 Times in 3,024 Posts
Default I'm sending the feds into Chicago after 1,714 shootings this year says Trump – and Democrat-led city begged for the help

Quote:
Donald Trump said on Friday that he was sending federal help to fight gun violence in Chicago that has reached 'epidemic proportions'
'Crime and killings in Chicago have reached such epidemic proportions that I am sending in Federal help. 1714 shootings in Chicago this year!' Trump tweeted
Liberal Democratic mayor Rahm Emanuel has visited the White House several times to ask for help
Chicago police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced the formation of the Chicago Crime Gun Strike Force
ATF has sent about 20 more agents to the city to help
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-violence.html
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
A.T. Hagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2017, 11:24 AM   #2
Potemkin
Omne ignotum pro magnifico
 
Potemkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28,079
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 110
Thanked 5,827 Times in 2,885 Posts
Make it about firearms.

Pass some more gun laws! Yes that will do the trick. Criminals won't DARE break the new MORE HARSHER laws.

Of course Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest firearms laws now.

The Illinois FOID card is just registration is disguise.
__________________
“The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Puppet Masters
Potemkin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Potemkin For This Useful Post:
NowVoyager (07-02-2017)
Old 07-01-2017, 02:48 AM   #3
Ross
Lifetime Member
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 14,897
Thanks: 5,718
Thanked 6,082 Times in 2,729 Posts
I think proper policing ( investigation of crime ) could do a great deal
to bring down crime levels because potential repeat offenders would
be in jail .

..
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold . “Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ( Noam Chomsky )

‘you can judge a man’s spirit by the amount of truth he can tolerate.’ .... Nietzsche
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2017, 01:07 PM   #4
Mousehound
Senior Level 6
 
Mousehound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 9,966
Thanks: 4,373
Thanked 2,899 Times in 1,280 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
I think proper policing ( investigation of crime ) could do a great deal
to bring down crime levels because potential repeat offenders would
be in jail .

..
I am afraid that anything short of a small nuclear warhead will not reduce the crime levels that they have there. I really feel sorry for any law enforcement that has to work in that hell hole.
__________________
There are always dozens of reasons why something "can't" be done. That's no excuse in my book. If you want it bad enough, you find a way. That's how life works for grown ups. -- Booger

Don't be afraid to be open-minded. Your brain won't fall out.

Calorie Counter
Mousehound is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mousehound For This Useful Post:
Ross (07-02-2017)
Old 07-02-2017, 03:07 AM   #5
Sysiphus
Senior Level 6
 
Sysiphus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,566
Thanks: 708
Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,079 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross View Post
I think proper policing ( investigation of crime ) could do a great deal
to bring down crime levels because potential repeat offenders would
be in jail .

..
Not if no witnesses will talk. The whole "no snitch" thing means no amount of investigation will solve most of the crimes. Notwithstanding shows like CSI, technology and forensic evidence alone are insufficient to solve most crimes.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sysiphus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sysiphus For This Useful Post:
NowVoyager (07-02-2017), Ross (07-02-2017), rryan (07-06-2017), spinnerholic (07-03-2017)
Old 07-05-2017, 03:06 AM   #6
Brihard
Non-Electric Pop Up Target
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,510
Thanks: 61
Thanked 1,151 Times in 475 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sysiphus View Post
Not if no witnesses will talk. The whole "no snitch" thing means no amount of investigation will solve most of the crimes. Notwithstanding shows like CSI, technology and forensic evidence alone are insufficient to solve most crimes.
Yup. In neighbourhoods like that, you will get a good chunk of people who simply will not talk to police out of fear- there's really nothing in it for them to do so, and if they are even suspected of snitching, they will likely be beaten severely or killed. And for many others, of course, to talk to the police would be completely anathema to their way of life. There's a subset of the population that survives through the drug trade and criminal predation. It's an entirely different moral calculus- the law of the jungle, damned near. They of course have their own societal groups, largely built around the gangs, and their own codes of ethics within this... It's just a very different one from the one most of us exist within. Victims themselves will seldom come forward to police- they deal with it in house in their own way, usually tit for tat retaliation.

Police investigations turn on many different things. In a run of the mill shooting, short of catching the perp with the gun and having some solid forensic evidence, you're going to be dependent on witnesses and victims.

Most criminal shootings are 'small' events in their own right, and will have limited investigation avenues particularly absent cooperative witnesses. You get these guys through bigger investigations into the gang activity, and hopefully catch them with drugs or guns, often through pretty extensive surveillance work and search warrants. You round a bunch of them up, send them to jail for a while- and meanwhile their gang will promote others to fill the spots, or if the gang has been hit hard enough by the arrests, others will go to war over the now vacant corners, and more blood will spill anew.

The war on drugs is an endless game of whack a mole. There's too much money in it for the criminal gangs to go away, and with that money and the easy access to firearms will come the shootings. More resources may suppress it to an extent. It won't end the crisis though.That would take a multigenerational effort to get neighbourhoods of people educated and working legitimately again. Violent crime would need to become viewed pragmatically as the less desirable way to get by in life. Right and wrong won't really come in until people have a way to make the rent and feed themselves.
Brihard is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Brihard For This Useful Post:
drummagick (07-07-2017)
Old 07-05-2017, 08:21 AM   #7
Ross
Lifetime Member
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 14,897
Thanks: 5,718
Thanked 6,082 Times in 2,729 Posts






..
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold . “Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ( Noam Chomsky )

‘you can judge a man’s spirit by the amount of truth he can tolerate.’ .... Nietzsche
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 09:07 AM   #8
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
The inner city ghetto blacks are victim to a contrived subculture. A malignant subculture that was created for political reasons, and which has become a vicious cycle of ignorance, victimhood, and violence. Political profit and monetary profit are derived from this sociological creation, and very few care about the thousands upon thousands of lives ruined.

Most people are so sick of it all that they simply want to crush it with an overwhelming law enforcement occupation. This may satisfy the primitive screwheadism of many, but it will not be any kind of real solution to the problem. The whole mess will regrow from the ashes, unless of course one considers genocide of all the blacks and the eradication of every vestige of their subculture. I do not think that is possible, or advisable.

This pathological subculture has been growing since the early sixties. I watched it progress. Nobody on the street gave a damn what was happening, nobody could seem to comprehend that it could turn out badly.

Well here it is, in all its glorious cruelty and horror, and just how is it being handled? Pay them off, poverty is the cause.......bullshit. Send in the JBTs to arrest and beat them all down, that'll teach them ghetto rats to act up........bullshit. Let the progressives handle it, because they are so compassionate and knowledgeable about societal things.........bullshit, they are largely responsible for the genesis of the whole thing. Well, its all coming due, so how are we going to cure this cultural tumor. Crickets, idiocy...........

Then there is something that I feel is very unpopular to consider, does anybody have any compassion for all dem little nigga babys, that in reality don't have a straw hat's chance in hell of any sort of normal life.......they are cursed from birth by something created for the power struggle between the left and the right in America. It's nauseatingly tragic, these are human beings, being sacrificed, and most everybody blames them for it all, in totality.

Damned cruel, ignorant, stupid people, you reap what you sow, and all the denial in the world can't stop the cause and effect of what has been done.
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 09:18 AM   #9
Ross
Lifetime Member
 
Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 14,897
Thanks: 5,718
Thanked 6,082 Times in 2,729 Posts
So what is your solution ?

..
__________________
All paper is a short position on gold . “Gold is money. Everything else is credit.”

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ( Noam Chomsky )

‘you can judge a man’s spirit by the amount of truth he can tolerate.’ .... Nietzsche
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 11:00 AM   #10
A.T. Hagan
Your "Crazy Town" reporter
 
A.T. Hagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North/Central Florida
Posts: 12,831
Thanks: 2,861
Thanked 7,126 Times in 3,024 Posts
I believe there is a solution to this, but in the beginning it will be bloody and horrific before it gets better.

No jack booted thugs, no oppressive governments, no nukes, but there will be plenty of death. Probably violence for a time as well.

Legalize ALL illicit drugs. That's it.

Legalize them all and let the evolutionary chips fall where they may.

We're already seeing a horrific death rate from all of this and it seems like everything governments from the local to the national levels do only makes it worse.

Legalize them. Regulate only the purity and the packaging (as in the baggie says 'heroin' it's really heroin and not Fentanyl). Without fear of arrest for selling their drugs I think most dealers would probably take the trouble to make sure they've got the real thing if selling adulterated product is the only thing that'll bring the cops down on them.

I *know* it will devastate a lot of people. It already is. Let it be sold cheap and pure and eliminate the ones who are the most susceptible. Take the money we'd have spent on law enforcement and prisons and use it for drug treatment for the ones who realize they made a mistake and want out. Once anyway.

We have not and simply cannot stop human evolution. But we can pervert it and we have.

Let's put our efforts and resources into saving the ones who want to be saved and let the ones determined to check out go.

We are ruining ourselves with our current course of action.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
A.T. Hagan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to A.T. Hagan For This Useful Post:
AndreaCA (07-08-2017), Catbird (07-09-2017), dharma (07-05-2017), drummagick (07-07-2017), DryHeat (07-10-2017), linttrap (07-08-2017), NowVoyager (07-12-2017), rryan (07-06-2017)
Old 07-05-2017, 01:51 PM   #11
Sysiphus
Senior Level 6
 
Sysiphus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,566
Thanks: 708
Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,079 Posts
Quote:
The whole mess will regrow from the ashes, unless of course one considers genocide of all the blacks and the eradication of every vestige of their subculture. I do not think that is possible, or advisable.
Agreed. As long as we have a welfare state that rewards poor decision-making, this will continue. It is not just inner-city blacks, either. Whole communities of poor, rural whites are having similar issues. Are we going to end up in a situation where political fortunes depend on who gets the most inner-city blacks and poor rural whites to vote for them? Throw in potential amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, and we have really turned the corner.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sysiphus is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sysiphus For This Useful Post:
Catbird (07-09-2017), drummagick (07-07-2017), flourbug (07-05-2017), NowVoyager (07-12-2017), rryan (07-06-2017)
Old 07-06-2017, 03:35 PM   #12
rryan
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,037
Thanks: 2,717
Thanked 1,487 Times in 679 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.T. Hagan View Post
I believe there is a solution to this, but in the beginning it will be bloody and horrific before it gets better.

No jack booted thugs, no oppressive governments, no nukes, but there will be plenty of death. Probably violence for a time as well.

Legalize ALL illicit drugs. That's it.

Legalize them all and let the evolutionary chips fall where they may.

We're already seeing a horrific death rate from all of this and it seems like everything governments from the local to the national levels do only makes it worse.

Legalize them. Regulate only the purity and the packaging (as in the baggie says 'heroin' it's really heroin and not Fentanyl). Without fear of arrest for selling their drugs I think most dealers would probably take the trouble to make sure they've got the real thing if selling adulterated product is the only thing that'll bring the cops down on them.

I *know* it will devastate a lot of people. It already is. Let it be sold cheap and pure and eliminate the ones who are the most susceptible. Take the money we'd have spent on law enforcement and prisons and use it for drug treatment for the ones who realize they made a mistake and want out. Once anyway.

We have not and simply cannot stop human evolution. But we can pervert it and we have.

Let's put our efforts and resources into saving the ones who want to be saved and let the ones determined to check out go.

We are ruining ourselves with our current course of action.
Absolutely right. The welfare state has expanded a class to a proportion that would never have existed without it.
__________________
“Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again.”
-RAH

It's still we the people, right?
rryan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 06:41 PM   #13
dharma
Git it, booger.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,652
Thanks: 1,138
Thanked 2,732 Times in 1,058 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.T. Hagan
I *know* it will devastate a lot of people.
Maybe so. Maybe not.

We have precedents.

1) Pre-1914 (Harrison Act) US. Essentially everything was easily available. Heroin and cocaine were both ingredients in various "tonics". Yet the "plague" of drug use did not begin to become such for another 40 years; the early temperance movements were primarily concerned with drug use among the lower classes, and various drug laws were passed for primarily racist reasons (cocaine was felt to be a black drug, opium Chinese, marijuana Hispanic).

2) Alcohol prohibition 1920-1933 US. Consumption was cut only in half, and at a cost of criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens, and giving birth to the Mafia. Alcoholics stayed alcoholics, and new alcoholics were still created (perhaps at a lower rate). But Prohibition fixed nothing, and did not materially reduce the human costs of use/abuse.

3) Portugal. They decriminalized drugs years ago. Result? 3 drug overdose deaths per million per year. Number in the US? 14.7. There are plenty of other statistics but I'd say that sums up the point.

Legalize 'em.
dharma is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to dharma For This Useful Post:
A.T. Hagan (07-07-2017), Catbird (07-09-2017), drummagick (07-07-2017), leistb (07-07-2017), linttrap (07-08-2017), NowVoyager (07-12-2017), rryan (07-08-2017)
Old 07-07-2017, 11:25 PM   #14
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Maybe so. Maybe not.

We have precedents.

1) Pre-1914 (Harrison Act) US. Essentially everything was easily available. Heroin and cocaine were both ingredients in various "tonics". Yet the "plague" of drug use did not begin to become such for another 40 years; the early temperance movements were primarily concerned with drug use among the lower classes, and various drug laws were passed for primarily racist reasons (cocaine was felt to be a black drug, opium Chinese, marijuana Hispanic).

2) Alcohol prohibition 1920-1933 US. Consumption was cut only in half, and at a cost of criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens, and giving birth to the Mafia. Alcoholics stayed alcoholics, and new alcoholics were still created (perhaps at a lower rate). But Prohibition fixed nothing, and did not materially reduce the human costs of use/abuse.

3) Portugal. They decriminalized drugs years ago. Result? 3 drug overdose deaths per million per year. Number in the US? 14.7. There are plenty of other statistics but I'd say that sums up the point.

Legalize 'em.

You make, to me, a glaring mistake in holding those examples up as precedent to guide us in how we should decide these issues.

How can you ignore the cultural differences? The culture of America now is vastly different from what it was in 1920-1933, and earlier. This implies that people are different now, think differently, therefore will react differently. This is a variable that must be taken into account, if one doesn't want to get blindsided by unintended consequences.

There are several facets to this issue that must be taken into account before we throw up our hands saying it's all just too much, let's just give up and open the flood gates. The very fact that so many people agree with the legalization of all drugs, as an answer to these problems, strongly indicates an inability, or unwillingness to tackle these problems rationally.

Just because past efforts, the so called war on drugs most notably, was totally bereft of logical, rational thinking, and resulted in increasing criminal behavior, and cruelly absurd punishments for transgressors, doesn't mean that we should give up.

The fact that our responses to societal problems of long standing, that we have failed to properly address, are becoming evermore bizarre, illogical, is a result of how our culture is vastly different now.

Why does man ingest drugs of various kinds, and has done so ever since he discovered their existence? It is to alter his perception of reality. Early on in man's history this purposeful altering of perception was for spiritual reasons, not recreation. In our present culture many seek altered perceptions of their reality as a desperate escape from what they perceive as hell on earth. Others who aren't reduced to such desperate straights use drugs to give themselves an edge in the evermore vicious competition for all things necessary or desirable. A very few just want to have fun, or so they rationalize it.

We exist in a grossly pathological culture, one that is anti-human in many ways. The stresses induced by this are causing evermore psychological pathology, and concomitant physical manifestations. This is a vicious cycle, once set in motion by the innate insanity of man's psychology, it feeds itself, inevitably becoming more and more unstable, until the culture collapses into fragments of its former self. That is unless it falls prey to another culture that is still viable enough to predate others.

So we must look at what is now in our culture, not the past, not other cultures, if we are to logically and accurately address what is killing us.

Of course none of this will be considered, for there are always vastly more people that react in self-interest, or simply idiocy, than those who attempt to be just a bit more far-sighted, or even rational.

So go right ahead with this fine plan to legalize all drugs, just as a vast social experiment if nothing else, but please afford me the right to blow away anybody that comes to me, or those I care about, in a drug induced state, demanding and threatening, or doing violence, because there will not be enough law enforcement personnel to protect everybody(there aren't enough now in a lot of places). This may be you, your friends, your kin, for who knows who will make a mistake as to dosage, or type of drug being ingested, for whatever initial reason. Don't come crying after the fact that they really didn't mean it, weren't really going to kill me to rape my wife while in a drug induced madness. Are you ready for that sort of collateral damage, or do you just deny the probability of it all, while holding up comparisons to hobbits as to why it will all turn out just fine.

"All drugs", all drugs being legalized is a far cry from simply alcohol, or reefer being legalized, and the abuse of those two drugs takes its toll on many, many who aren't even involved in their use.

How could you people who advocate for this legalization, be so naively trusting in the judgement of your fellow man? I have seen too much in my lifetime to accept that point of view as informed, or even rational.

Last edited by ghost finger; 07-07-2017 at 11:38 PM.
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2017, 01:01 AM   #15
BuilderBob
Senior Member
 
BuilderBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, UK
Posts: 1,418
Thanks: 232
Thanked 433 Times in 276 Posts
Cultural changes. Yes.

My thoughts. Say about 100 years ago and more kids were family helpers. They were needed to help on the farm or whatever. They had duties to the family.

Today it is education without guidance. A lot of youngsters are bored. They don't know what they want. Modern technology has given them access to exciting stuff. Legislation will increase the challenge and the profits.

More 'stuff' and widely available information on that 'stuff' is not helping.

I agree with dharma. Make it all legal and publicise the results. This is natural evolution. Survival of the fittest. The human mind created all this 'stuff' and must learn to live with it.

Legislation leads to control of the human mind. Goose step anyone?
BuilderBob is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BuilderBob For This Useful Post:
rryan (07-08-2017)
Old 07-08-2017, 02:20 AM   #16
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuilderBob View Post
Cultural changes. Yes.

Cultural changes, such as far less holding people accountable for their actions, and protecting people from the deadly ramifications of their irresponsible actions.

My thoughts. Say about 100 years ago and more kids were family helpers. They were needed to help on the farm or whatever. They had duties to the family.

So they were taught to think logically, rationally, responsibly.

Today it is education without guidance. A lot of youngsters are bored. They don't know what they want. Modern technology has given them access to exciting stuff. Legislation will increase the challenge and the profits.

Education today actually teaches them things that are patently untrue, PC indoctrination, that would have lead them to possibly disastrous consequences in times past, and seems to be leading them into various degrees of madness now.

More 'stuff' and widely available information on that 'stuff' is not helping.

I agree with dharma. Make it all legal and publicise the results. This is natural evolution. Survival of the fittest. The human mind created all this 'stuff' and must learn to live with it.

Just how far back in time are you suggesting we let such regression take us? It sounds as if you yearn for a brutal world with this survival of the fittest thing. Would you give a toddler a hand grenade, or a loaded gun to play with? Well the drugs being manufactured in illicit labs now days are an unknown, and extremely powerful. The human carnage from legalizing whatever drugs that could be produced would be immense. Do you have any children, if so did you teach them things they would need to know before letting them wander off into the world? If you did teach them, why, why didn't you let "survival of the fittest" work its magic on your children?

Legislation leads to control of the human mind. Goose step anyone?
Man found out very early on his evolution that there must needs be control exercised over the mind of man. This is what teaching is, not just legislation. Everything can get out of hand, and does, so yes, we have run amuck with legislation, laws, but just how do you arrive at such an all inclusive negative attitude to it all?
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2017, 03:37 AM   #17
BuilderBob
Senior Member
 
BuilderBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, UK
Posts: 1,418
Thanks: 232
Thanked 433 Times in 276 Posts
Hmm... so I have an 'all inclusive negative attitude' when you seem to think less legislation will lead to 'regression' of the human race?

Not so. What I hope for is tolerance among people. If education fails some people and they insist on dangerous life stiles they should be informed of the consequences and allowed to get on with it.

Imposing laws on the whole human race to protect a few dumbos is not my idea of an enlightened future.
BuilderBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2017, 04:36 AM   #18
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuilderBob View Post
Hmm... so I have an 'all inclusive negative attitude' when you seem to think less legislation will lead to 'regression' of the human race?

WE have a misunderstanding here, allow me to clarify.

The "all inclusive negative attitude to it all" was referring to "Legislation leads to control of the human mind." Legislation (of laws) is but one way of controlling the human mind, that is, creating boundaries, parameters, meanings, within which it is advisable to operate, under threat of various punishments. Teaching, whether formerly in schools, or through media such as advertising, movies, games, etc, also teach people, with varying degrees of efficiency. All of this teaching controls through altering the knowledge base of an individual, for good or bad, or in between. So, it would seem logical that rejection of "control of the mind" would be an all inclusive rejection, not only of legislated knowledge, but all taught knowledge.

Perhaps that isn't what you meant. I think you meant law, and only law as a negative, but ofttimes the teachings from sources outside of legislated law have a much greater impact on controlling thought, setting up meanings, boundaries, values in people's minds.

That being said, I agree that we don't benefit by evermore laws being written. The problem that is the genesis of this overabundance of law is that law cannot be written in such a way as to cover all possibilities, and people cheat, find ways to circumvent the letter of the law, and so more law is written to patch the holes, or to cover new areas of cheating, or just so some elected jerk can have his name attached to it.



Not so. What I hope for is tolerance among people. If education fails some people and they insist on dangerous life stiles they should be informed of the consequences and allowed to get on with it.


People don't live independently of others. Their stupidities create ramifications that reverberate throughout society. Government theoretically has a vested interest in controlling the levels of stupidity among its citizens. It costs more to maintain an economy, and all the other things necessary for a culture to survive, if the levels of stupidity get too high, then the government doesn't have as much money to attempt manipulations, or mount outright attacks against other nations.



Imposing laws on the whole human race to protect a few dumbos is not my idea of an enlightened future.
"Few dumbos", here we have a fundamental disagreement. I see the human race as having a deadly plague of "dumbos", whereas you seem to think they exist as a tiny minority. Of course we need to define what is really meant by "dumbo."

Without law being written and imposed on the many, we would have every man, or groups of men writing their own versions of law. This would amount to regression, a return to the warlords, and their forever wars.
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2017, 10:27 AM   #19
dharma
Git it, booger.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,652
Thanks: 1,138
Thanked 2,732 Times in 1,058 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
This implies that people are different now, think differently, therefore will react differently.
"This time it's different". I believe that is the core of your argument.

But, as any professional investor can tell you, it's never different. In the investing world, it's greed and fear; in the broader realms of man, it's lust, love, awe, rage, the will to power, the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Human nature never changes. That is not to say that it is simple, or as easily manipulated as some might think, but the mobs of Rome and the mobs of inner city Baltimore are not fundamentally different, and they will respond to incentive in similar ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
The very fact that so many people agree with the legalization of all drugs, as an answer to these problems, strongly indicates an inability, or unwillingness to tackle these problems rationally.
On the contrary, the argument for legalization is built on rationality; the argument for continued criminalization is built on moralism, racism, and fear. How else to explain the obdurate clinging to something that is so obviously a failure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
Early on in man's history this purposeful altering of perception was for spiritual reasons, not recreation.
Pfffft. I present to you, sir, a substance known as "beer". It is a thing so fundamental to man's history that many think agriculture was invented to enable its consumption, and some believe it is responsible for civilization itself (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/archeolo...ers-invention/).

There are those who consume ayahuasca or mescaline or psilocybin or belladonna in search of an entree to other realities, certainly, but they are outnumbered thousands to one by those seeking only the peace, comfort, and release of a good old beer buzz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
We exist in a grossly pathological culture, one that is anti-human in many ways.
Well, OK. But when, for human beings, has that not been true? Human lives, from the Neolithic, through the Middle Ages, through Nazi Germany, through North Korea, have tended to be nasty, brutish, and short. Slavery, war, disease, all constants throughout human history. I am not impressed that the horrors of modern America, undeniable though some of them are, are appreciably greater than those faced by my ancestors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
Of course none of this will be considered, for there are always vastly more people that react in self-interest, or simply idiocy, than those who attempt to be just a bit more far-sighted, or even rational.
God save us from those who deem themselves wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
So go right ahead with this fine plan to legalize all drugs, just as a vast social experiment if nothing else, but please afford me the right to blow away anybody that comes to me, or those I care about, in a drug induced state, demanding and threatening, or doing violence
Goodness. Sounds awful. Thank Heaven there's no one about like that now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
How could you people who advocate for this legalization, be so naively trusting in the judgement of your fellow man? I have seen too much in my lifetime to accept that point of view as informed, or even rational.
I trust my fellow man to watch out for himself and his best interests, and I ask no more of him, nor do I expect him to ask more of me. Those who do—the communists, the socialists, the temperance workers, the societal improvers and utopians of all stripes—are inevitably disappointed, usually at the cost of much blood and pain. Enough of that. Freedom for everyone. Legalize 'em.
dharma is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dharma For This Useful Post:
AndreaCA (07-08-2017), Catbird (07-09-2017), leistb (07-08-2017), pave_spectre (07-08-2017), proteus (07-15-2017), rryan (07-08-2017)
Old 07-09-2017, 12:19 AM   #20
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
"This time it's different". I believe that is the core of your argument.

But, as any professional investor can tell you, it's never different. In the investing world, it's greed and fear; in the broader realms of man, it's lust, love, awe, rage, the will to power, the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Human nature never changes. That is not to say that it is simple, or as easily manipulated as some might think, but the mobs of Rome and the mobs of inner city Baltimore are not fundamentally different, and they will respond to incentive in similar ways.
No, incorrect, I did not say simply that "this time it is different". I said that the culture is vastly different now, and saying this does not imply that the commonality of mankind throughout time has become void. Yes, I agree that what you so vaguely call human nature has not changed, and is not likely to in the foreseeable future, but the culture has changed, the rules, written and otherwise, that man devises to necessarily temper, control said human nature have changed, radically. This has a definitive, quantifiable effect on how said human nature plays out, in our time. This is not a little, inconsequential thing, it has powerful, real world ramifications that must be taken into account.

Human nature; I characterize this as the hard wired survival mechanisms, psychological/biological, genetic, and common to all normal humans. There is the reality of this, but in addition, humans do not exist as single entities in this world, rather we exist as interdependent animals, social creatures, for the very good reason that it is how we evolved in order to survive. As social animals, but human, with the potential that involves, we generate what we call culture, that is, the totality of what we do. This evolved quite differently with physically separated groups of humans, but the culture of each group is who they are, both a protection, and a prison. It is from the written and unwritten rules that have been established for each culture as it evolves, that the members therein derive their identity, and guidance for how they should deport themselves in all interactions.

So it should be painfully obvious that radical changes in the culture, the rules we cannot escape to any degree of totality, would inexorably result in different responses to any given social stimuli.

If you can accept what I have said as factual, you can then argue that this is not that important an influence, but I would think that an examination of the cultural changes of the last two hundred years, and the concomitant radical changes in how people think about and react to various social challenges will illustrate that people now are not carbon copies of those in ancient Rome. Different cultures, different thinking, different reactions.

You mention a "professional investor", you hold them up as some sort of expert on this subject, and demand that I take heed, well, a professional investor specializes in one thing; they are skilled at greasing the hamster wheel of economics that so many feel it is critical that they waste their lives running upon. No, I find my teachers elsewhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
On the contrary, the argument for legalization is built on rationality; the argument for continued criminalization is built on moralism, racism, and fear. How else to explain the obdurate clinging to something that is so obviously a failure?
Rational, definition.......based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Now, let us debate whether you are accepting the necessary facts in order to build a rational, logical argument in favor of the legalization of all drugs. I contend that you are not taking into account some very important, to me, factual information necessary to come to a rational assessment of the proposed actions to be taken. I contend that for whatever reasons, that I dare not broach, you are simply denying what you don't want to take into account, in order to build a ,disingenuous,fallacious argument that pleases your desires. I understand the humanity of this, and accept the normalcy of the doing of it, but it does not meet the criteria of, rational = based on or in accordance with reason or logic, in my perception of these things.

You also read into my arguments some sort of support for "continued criminalization", and this is not supported by what I have actually said. I have not discussed what I think about how drug users, or more specifically, drug abusers, should be reacted to on a societal level. I have simply taken the position that the legalization of all drugs is a bad idea, and then I put forth various reasons as to why I think so. One of my posts replying to this subject was eaten by the internet gods, and I did not feel like rewriting it again......innate laziness no doubt.

"...moralism, racism, and fear" of course, these things permeate most everything, but to stop with that is ignorant, self-serving. People fear change, in laws or anything else, unless their brains have been cored out and filled with stupidity, then they will gleefully run off the cliff in pursuit of "hope and change", but I digress. People cling to bad policy out of fear that any dramatic change will bring disaster, and there is some truth to that possibility, especially when idiocy like, "let's all give up because of past failures, and open the floodgates, just to see what happens," is seriously proposed as an alternative to admitting the failure, and its costs, and embarking on a careful, honest, logical, yes rational, creation of an alternative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Pfffft. I present to you, sir, a substance known as "beer". It is a thing so fundamental to man's history that many think agriculture was invented to enable its consumption, and some believe it is responsible for civilization itself (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/archeolo...ers-invention/).

There are those who consume ayahuasca or mescaline or psilocybin or belladonna in search of an entree to other realities, certainly, but they are outnumbered thousands to one by those seeking only the peace, comfort, and release of a good old beer buzz.
I said, "Why does man ingest drugs of various kinds, and has done so ever since he discovered their existence? It is to alter his perception of reality. Early on in man's history this purposeful altering of perception was for spiritual reasons, not recreation."

To understand what I was saying, one must not remove certain parts of the whole in order to change the intended meaning so as to fit your intended response. This is not honest.

"...seeking only the peace, comfort, and release of a good old beer buzz", is this not seeking to alter one's reality, the reality to be hopefully altered being one of existing in reality without an alcohol buzz?

There is more to this. The purposeful brewing of beer came much later than the period of man's evolution that I am referring to. Man had to reach a point at which he could afford to take the time away from hunting and gathering to think up and brew up some beer. Before that was achieved the ingestion of mind altering substances would not be so formalized. I would contend that it would be necessary for man to reach the stage of animal husbandry/agriculture in order to free up enough time to set up a brewery. Then with city, or village building, people could specialize, and drug production could really take off.

In the earliest stages, the hunter-gatherer time, and earlier no doubt, everything that altered one's reality would have a spiritual context, mainly because man at that level had no understanding from a scientific point of view as to the why of the changes in perceived reality brought about by ingestion of various things. Man turns to things spiritual throughout his history to answer, or give meaning to those things he does not understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Well, OK. But when, for human beings, has that not been true? Human lives, from the Neolithic, through the Middle Ages, through Nazi Germany, through North Korea, have tended to be nasty, brutish, and short. Slavery, war, disease, all constants throughout human history. I am not impressed that the horrors of modern America, undeniable though some of them are, are appreciably greater than those faced by my ancestors.
You do like your false equivalencies, and I grow weary of repeatedly attempting to point out the meanings of these things through the fog of the aforementioned that you rely upon to maintain your illusions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
God save us from those who deem themselves wise.
This is petty, although there is some truth to it, it is most commonly employed as an underhanded insult. You are not talking to a child.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Goodness. Sounds awful. Thank Heaven there's no one about like that now!
Sarcasm as insult, see above for explanation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
I trust my fellow man to watch out for himself and his best interests, and I ask no more of him, nor do I expect him to ask more of me. Those who do—the communists, the socialists, the temperance workers, the societal improvers and utopians of all stripes—are inevitably disappointed, usually at the cost of much blood and pain. Enough of that. Freedom for everyone. Legalize 'em.
That seems to be your version of Randian Objectivism, an ignorant, self-serving, vomitous that has become very popular.

That is an ignorant repudiation of the reality of man, that we only survive as interdependent, social creatures. The followers of said philosophy can only survive by the protection of the group, and they feed upon same while lying to themselves that they are "......a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"

That pathological garbage is suicide for mankind, if enough become deluded by it.

You have the user name, dharma, the word for the accumulated wisdom of over two thousand years of Buddhist thought. Given the thoughts you display here, what possible actual relevance could that word have to the perceived reality of you? It was just cool to be associated with it??????
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 11:21 AM   #21
dharma
Git it, booger.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,652
Thanks: 1,138
Thanked 2,732 Times in 1,058 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
the culture has changed, the rules, written and otherwise, that man devises to necessarily temper, control said human nature have changed, radically. This has a definitive, quantifiable effect
A point you have made repeatedly now, with increasingly dense associated verbiage, but which you have failed to otherwise demonstrate. Evidence. Facts. Contrast and compare.

Other than vaguely predicting an apocalypse of zombified drug users encroaching on your property to be righteously "blown away", you have likewise failed to offer up any evidence of associated consequence. I gave three examples which demonstrate the failure of prohibition and the success of decriminalization. The drug war is an abject disaster. If you disagree, feel free to argue otherwise, and to use your own examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
radical changes in the culture, the rules we cannot escape to any degree of totality, would inexorably result in different responses to any given social stimuli.
A tautology. But demonstrate, at your leisure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
I contend that for whatever reasons, that I dare not broach, you are simply denying what you don't want to take into account, in order to build a disingenuous, fallacious argument that pleases your desires.
Broach away, my mealy-mouthed friend. Snide implications that I am fond of illicit drugs are not only 180 degrees off, but they are an indication that you are beginning to have to resort to insults rather than rational argument. You indict yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
I have not discussed what I think about how drug users, or more specifically, drug abusers, should be reacted to on a societal level. I have simply taken the position that the legalization of all drugs is a bad idea, and then I put forth various reasons as to why I think so.
"My reasons are vague at best, and revolve around the differences in our modern culture that would render legalization a bad idea, though I haven't specified those differences either, really, nor how such differences would create problems. I likewise have neither specified why I think the present system of criminalization is a good one, nor offered any alternatives. Nonetheless, it should be obvious to anyone that my argument is airtight!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
People cling to bad policy out of fear that any dramatic change will bring disaster
Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
In the earliest stages, the hunter-gatherer time, and earlier no doubt, everything that altered one's reality would have a spiritual context, mainly because man at that level had no understanding from a scientific point of view as to the why of the changes in perceived reality brought about by ingestion of various things. Man turns to things spiritual throughout his history to answer, or give meaning to those things he does not understand.
Since neither of us was around to attend a Neolithic beer bash, proof pro or con is difficult. In those primitive societies which persist, however, and in our own modern practices, it is pretty easily demonstrable that the "holy" substances are the psychedelics, and beer and wine are consumed for relaxation and conviviality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
That seems to be your version of Randian Objectivism, an ignorant, self-serving, vomitous that has become very popular.

That is an ignorant repudiation of the reality of man, that we only survive as interdependent, social creatures. The followers of said philosophy can only survive by the protection of the group, and they feed upon same while lying to themselves that they are "......a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute"

That pathological garbage is suicide for mankind, if enough become deluded by it.
That pathological garbage is the fundamental reason for all human progress. Our founding fathers called it enlightened self-interest, and elevated individual rights to their proper places in the human conversation. A society of free men, acting in their own interests, is not only the one that works best, it is also the only one worth living in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
You have the user name, dharma, the word for the accumulated wisdom of over two thousand years of Buddhist thought. Given the thoughts you display here, what possible actual relevance could that word have to the perceived reality of you? It was just cool to be associated with it??????
Wow, six question marks! You must be really serious, huh?

The way of the Tao is subtle, and the course is seldom straight. The wise walk humbly, but diligently, seeking their own proper paths, and seeking likewise not to impede others in their own search for enlightenment.

About as Randian as it gets. But, to see, one must open one's eyes.
dharma is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dharma For This Useful Post:
pave_spectre (07-09-2017), rryan (07-10-2017)
Old 07-10-2017, 02:50 AM   #22
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
A point you have made repeatedly now, with increasingly dense associated verbiage, but which you have failed to otherwise demonstrate. Evidence. Facts. Contrast and compare.

Other than vaguely predicting an apocalypse of zombified drug users encroaching on your property to be righteously "blown away", you have likewise failed to offer up any evidence of associated consequence. I gave three examples which demonstrate the failure of prohibition and the success of decriminalization. The drug war is an abject disaster. If you disagree, feel free to argue otherwise, and to use your own examples.
Well dharma, I wasn't posting up examples as evidence because to me they were glaringly obvious, unless of course a person refuses to see them for whatever reason.

Probably the most obvious example of cultural change that would lead me to believe that the legalization of all drugs would be a bad idea is the acceptance of drug use/abuse by most nearly every facet of society, with the associated costs being born by the taxpayer in large part. There are songs about drug abuse coupled with violence that are common to rap/hiphop. The sixties onward brought druggie music to everybody, and tried to portray it as cool. Movie stars and other celebrities constantly portray drug use as being cool. Alcohol adds used to do the same until some people thought it was ravaging the black communities, and applied pressure to stop it from being so blatant and in your face. This attitude was nonexistent for the most part in the fifties, it began in the sixties.............cultural change.

There is another cultural change that is even more dangerous in my opinion, and that is the contempt for, and hatred of authority across the board. I don't think making all drugs available to people who feel this way would be conducive to the health, and longevity of our law enforcement officers, among other people in positions of authority. This attitude would have been seen as sociopathic in the fifties, now it is seen as the attitude to have to be cool in many people's minds.........cultural change.

In our times people have come to the conclusion that taking drugs is the answer for most if not all of life's problems. I don't think giving them a wildly expanded choice of drugs with which to self-medicate will turn out well. In the fifties people used drugs for the same reason, to ameliorate the suffering they experienced in life, but it was seen as reprehensible to rely heavily on this approach. Now it is accepted as normal...........yet more cultural change.

That should be enough to make the point, and no, I am not going to search out reams of statistics, graphs, and charts. If you need such to prove the validity of what is common knowledge, then you can find them for yourself.

You only presented two examples that pertained to the US specifically, and they were from a point in time where the culture was radically different than it is now........one of my initial points that you say has no validity.

I also said that the war on drugs was a failure, and that it had caused an immense amount of collateral damage, so why are you presenting that as something I am in favor of? There is no argument there, no real points of disagreement.

I think the problem is that you see this as black or white, drug war idiocy, or complete legalization. More and more people are thinking this way, in dualities, and it is actually normal, although it rejects the fact that there are a lot of possible answers to be found in between the two extremes. I think that not only is the drug war an utter failure, but the entire justice system needs to change. Specifically the concept of punishment versus rehabilitation. Yes, I have thought about that, have some ideas that although radical, I think could evidence change for the better, that is if we, as a people really give a damn about people who break the law.

About blowing drug crazies away, you surely characterize what I think most people would have comprehended as self defense against violence as pejoratively as you could. That really doesn't warrant any more discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Broach away, my mealy-mouthed friend. Snide implications that I am fond of illicit drugs are not only 180 degrees off, but they are an indication that you are beginning to have to resort to insults rather than rational argument. You indict yourself.
I had to really think about what you are implying I meant, and I still find it a real stretch that you think I meant that you were a drug abuser. Totally bizarre to me. I am well aware that you have to you, valid reasons for supporting your point of view, and I have no need to insult you by implying that you may be a drug addict. You on the other hand, seem to feel it necessary to drag this whole conversation(?) into the gutter by purposefully attempting to insult me, mealy-mouthed for example, and the two instances in your other post that I pointed out. This may be fun for you, but I find it just a bit less than helpful if the reasoned exchange of ideas is the point.................oh, it isn't the point, well what a drag.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Since neither of us was around to attend a Neolithic beer bash, proof pro or con is difficult. In those primitive societies which persist, however, and in our own modern practices, it is pretty easily demonstrable that the "holy" substances are the psychedelics, and beer and wine are consumed for relaxation and conviviality.
Yes, real proof is hard to come by is it not? Even with all manner of references to what other people say, great masses of statistics, official reports, internet opinions, one is still dealing with preconceived knowledge, knowledge told to you by others, as opposed to what you may experience for yourself. In this case you are correct, nobody now was alive back then to witness what was really going on. So in cases like this, if we desire to imagine how it all went down, we must rely on those with education that is applicable, in order to hypothesize a created reality. That's about the best we can do without a time machine. Now to rudely preempt your probable retort to this, yes I do have an education in Anthropology and Archaeology, and have engaged in discussions concerning things such as this drug use by man with some, to me, brilliant minds in those fields. By the way, what sort of qualifications do you have to contradict me with such certitude?

"In those primitive societies which persist............", Look up the Yanomami........from the Wikipedia article.........."Hallucinogens or entheogens, known as yakoana or ebene, are used by Yanomami shamans as part of healing rituals for members of the community who are ill. Yakoana, also refers to the tree from which it is derived, Virola elongata. Yopo, derived from a different plant with hallucinogenic effects (Anadenanthera peregrina), is usually cultivated in the garden by the shaman. The Xamatari also mix the powdered bark of Virola elongata with the powdered seeds of yopo to create the drug ebene. The drugs facilitate communication with the hekura, spirits that are believed to govern many aspects of the physical world. Women do not engage in this practice, known as shapuri."

Yes, this is the use of hallucinogenic drugs, for strictly spiritual reasons, but I say go back far enough and alcohol bearing substances would have most likely been seen in the same light. Of course when they found hallucinogens, the alcohol would have been displaced by virtue of the quality of the experience. No, I don't think anybody really can say which type of substance came first, but if alcohol came first, it most likely would have been perceived as something spiritual in nature, if not poison, lol.

Another amusing aside......the ebene drug, they load a tube up with the mixture, then it is forcefully blown up the nose of the recipient. After the drug takes effect, that dude be trippin' out, sitting there with copious green snot running out of his nose, down his face.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
That pathological garbage is the fundamental reason for all human progress. Our founding fathers called it enlightened self-interest, and elevated individual rights to their proper places in the human conversation. A society of free men, acting in their own interests, is not only the one that works best, it is also the only one worth living in.
Enlightened self-interest, an idealism, and as such never truly attainable. More commonly it is pure self-interest, no enlightenment needed or wanted, and that is the problem with things like that. We pretend that the wondrous ideal can become reality, then we tell ourselves it is the reality, but it isn't, we are just seeing what we want to see, creating a world of illusion by deluding ourselves.

From Ayn Rand "...... with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life......" I fundamentally disagree with this, and if you have understood the basics of Buddhism you probably would also. There is a distinct difference between cessation of suffering, and happiness, or pleasure, as happiness could be more aptly described. Cessation of suffering may bring happiness, but not necessarily, it can be simply cessation of suffering, a neutral thing, neither happy nor sad. Pursuit of happiness, pleasure, is nothing short of pursuit of the most addictive thing in man's psychology. Look around the western world, do you see how this addiction to pleasure distorts the lives of so many? Pleasure and pain are the duality of one thing, one cannot exist in our perception without the other as balance point. We wouldn't even know pleasure as such without pain to inform us of its existence. So, they must be lived in balance, not too much of either one, or the cause and effect of the imbalance will be experienced.

To elevate the pursuit of pleasure to the level of man's moral purpose in life is pure egotism, and you are correct, we live it, we teach it, it drives us onward to many great things, gives us reason to live, given the lack of greater understanding, but, and it's a big one, it brings great suffering and death with it. According to Buddhist thought it is our desires that are the genesis of our suffering, so in inflaming desire for the most addictive of things, we bring suffering upon ourselves. There is another way, reality is not black or white.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Wow, six question marks! You must be really serious, huh?

The way of the Tao is subtle, and the course is seldom straight. The wise walk humbly, but diligently, seeking their own proper paths, and seeking likewise not to impede others in their own search for enlightenment.

About as Randian as it gets. But, to see, one must open one's eyes.
There are differences in Buddhism, there were from nearly the beginning, and now there are things happening with Buddhism that, in my opinion, does not bode well, leads to misconceptions and perverting of wisdom for personal gain.

The studies in Buddhism that I have undertaken have been confined to direct translations of Buddhist texts......takes a while to comprehend......as opposed to people's writings on what those things meant to them, their interpretations of the original works. I soon noticed a marked difference between what I was reading and the "Buddhism lite" that seemed to be the norm in western culture, a sort of a pop Buddhism for those not inclined, or able to slog through the ofttimes torturous thinking of those long dead Buddhist monks. I also noticed that bits and fragments of Buddhist thought, and terminology were becoming common, and were many times devoid of the meanings that I understood them to have from my sources.

People are selectively picking things from Buddhist thought and inserting them into things they want to legitimize through association. This is intellectually dishonest and grossly self-serving, but oh so normal.

This leads us to now, where I endure the perversity of "About as Randian as it gets", unbelievable.
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 10:31 AM   #23
dharma
Git it, booger.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,652
Thanks: 1,138
Thanked 2,732 Times in 1,058 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
Probably the most obvious example of cultural change that would lead me to believe that the legalization of all drugs would be a bad idea is the acceptance of drug use/abuse by most nearly every facet of society
And cetera. But you don't specify how that would make legalization worse. Your point here is opaque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
the contempt for, and hatred of authority across the board. ... the health, and longevity of our law enforcement officers, among other people in positions of authority
Yeah, ever seen a marijuana crazed hippie attack a police officer?

Me either. I have seen the end results of drunks giving it a shot, however. Usually ends badly for them.

The epidemic of violence associated with drugs is a result of their illegality. 100,000+ dead in Mexico. Many hundreds killed every year in our inner cities due to drug-associated violence. Hundreds of dead every year to overdoses because of bad drugs. Legalization is going to make this worse? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
In our times people have come to the conclusion that taking drugs is the answer for most if not all of life's problems. I don't think giving them a wildly expanded choice of drugs with which to self-medicate will turn out well.
Here's a news flash: they're already doing it. It is human nature. Will some suffer? Undoubtedly; in every group of drinkers, there's an alcoholic or two. Prohibition didn't change that reality, and drug prohibition hasn't changed that for other substances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
I am not going to search out reams of statistics, graphs, and charts. If you need such to prove the validity of what is common knowledge, then you can find them for yourself.
Sorry, pard, you're not the first guy to try that line. There are only two translations, and anyone who's been around a discussion board knows what they are: 1) I'm too lazy to support my point, or 2) there is no good evidence that supports my point, so I'll continue to try to pass bluster off as fact, and hope nobody notices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
I also said that the war on drugs was a failure, and that it had caused an immense amount of collateral damage, so why are you presenting that as something I am in favor of? ... More and more people are thinking this way, in dualities, and it is actually normal, although it rejects the fact that there are a lot of possible answers to be found in between the two extremes.
Okay. What are they? When do we get to hear them? Bated breath and all, y'know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
About blowing drug crazies away, you surely characterize what I think most people would have comprehended as self defense against violence as pejoratively as you could. That really doesn't warrant any more discussion.
Here's another thing about discussion boards: everything you say sticks around for later quotation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
[from previous post] So go right ahead with this fine plan to legalize all drugs, just as a vast social experiment if nothing else, but please afford me the right to blow away anybody that comes to me, or those I care about, in a drug induced state, demanding and threatening, or doing violence
Ahem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
I had to really think about what you are implying I meant, and I still find it a real stretch that you think I meant that you were a drug abuser.
Uh huh. Again, the reader of your original post can decide for him/herself. But you are welcome to clarify. I invite you once again: broach away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
Now to rudely preempt your probable retort to this, yes I do have an education in Anthropology and Archaeology, and have engaged in discussions concerning things such as this drug use by man with some, to me, brilliant minds in those fields. By the way, what sort of qualifications do you have to contradict me with such certitude?
Facts. Evidence. Numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
Yes, this is the use of hallucinogenic drugs, for strictly spiritual reasons, but I say go back far enough and alcohol bearing substances would have most likely been seen in the same light.
Entheogens are used very occasionally, and with appropriate trepidation. Since you are an expert in anthropology and archaeology, you know that alcohol, once it could be easily produced, became a substance used daily in most cultures—in some, beer was taken with every meal, since it was safer than the water used to brew it. Beer and bread were daily staples, not religious substances, and, later, wine was the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
Enlightened self-interest, an idealism, and as such never truly attainable. More commonly it is pure self-interest, no enlightenment needed or wanted
Fine with me, since the end result is the same. Most people rapidly find out that honest dealing, friendliness, and decency are very much in their own interest. A society run on the concept does well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
From Ayn Rand "...... with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life......" ... To elevate the pursuit of pleasure to the level of man's moral purpose in life is pure egotism
Maybe. So what? Each has the right—the right—to live as he chooses, to find his own path. It is not given to you to interfere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
The studies in Buddhism that I have undertaken have been confined to direct translations of Buddhist texts......takes a while to comprehend......as opposed to people's writings on what those things meant to them, their interpretations of the original works. ... People are selectively picking things from Buddhist thought and inserting them into things they want to legitimize through association. This is intellectually dishonest and grossly self-serving, but oh so normal.
Well, since you're a high-powered Buddhist scholar and all, you know that "dharma" is not a concept unique to Buddhism, but is common to most Indian religions, and is very much subject to interpretation—and that the concept of the Tao is an ancient Vedic teaching that predates Buddhism by hundreds of years.

Can't have any intellectual dishonesty around here, that would be bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost finger
This leads us to now, where I endure the perversity of "About as Randian as it gets"
You must be very tough.
dharma is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dharma For This Useful Post:
pave_spectre (07-10-2017), rryan (07-10-2017)
Old 07-10-2017, 11:46 PM   #24
ghost finger
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 86
Thanks: 8
Thanked 81 Times in 35 Posts
This has gone on long enough, the patterns are clear, there is no doubt, any more investment is devoid of value, or need.

Your attack began when I said you made a glaring error, and that has not been disproved by you.

You immediately went on the attack, not by debating, but by employing every juvenile trick of argument that you could dig up.

Every opinion I state, based upon my knowledge, you attack by saying I must think I am some sort of an expert, simply because I presented an unapologetic opinion. This is a very common tactic that is employed to suppress any other opinions, and has caused people to provide caveats, apologizing for even having an opinion, before timidly stating same. Grade school bully tactics at their best.

No matter that I illustrated my reasoning by example, it was not enough, would never be enough, as the shrill cry for proof, proof, and evermore proof, was your response. There is no absolute proof on the internet, only probability, probability based upon what a person thinks they know as fact, and their own biases. When that reaches a certain level, then it is accepted as factual, and the reality is that there still is no proof, no absolute proof.

Your demands for proof could never be satisfied, because it was all about you attempting to control, and manipulate, to have me try harder and harder, invest evermore time in trying to meet your absurd requirements for proof, all the while you would sit back laughing at the whole thing, so proud of your ability to manipulate the situation. It's all just a petty ego game to you, and who "wins" is of paramount importance.

I don't play that adolescent game when the intent is so obvious. If I thought you were honest, and seriously trying to understand my assertions, I would gladly invest more time and effort in order to clarify my position, but that is not the reality here.

Your argument stands on one leg, the denial of all I have said, and you demand that I prove what you will never accept as proof. Your only examples to bolster your contentions likewise are totally dependent on your rejections, your denials, and you reject what is common knowledge, so obvious as to be taken as the reality to all but the most dull witted, in order to cling to your disingenuous denials. Cultural change doesn't exist, cultural change is not a critical factor to be taken into account when deciding things that are potentially explosive on a societal level, do you really expect me to accept that you are that dense? Well maybe so, but I find that hard to accept.

You do this because you know that I am correct, you did overlook something that must be taken into account, but you could not simply admit that, for you already had your mind made up concerning me, ..........who did I think I was to criticize you, this person you so despised? So you must then put me down, put me in my place, show me who was boss..............but you are not capable of that..........you are transparent to me, your motivations clear, your methodologies boringly simpleminded and disingenuous. You have only succeeded in clarifying to me what you are, what depths you will descend to in order to play out your desires.

I played your game this long in order to be sure, to let the patterns I suspected solidify, in order to not misjudge..........you were freely given the rope, with which you did effectively and thoroughly hang yourself.

Feel free to hit me with your best shot now, in an attempt to save face and win. I feel sure it will be performed in the same idiotic vein as the rest of your shallow games, and it doesn't matter to me, it is irrelevant now.



Clink, one more gram onto the scale that measures the validity of yet another, much larger pattern. One that addresses the why of patterns of the social development of cultures through time. I do thank you for that.
ghost finger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2017, 09:00 AM   #25
dharma
Git it, booger.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,652
Thanks: 1,138
Thanked 2,732 Times in 1,058 Posts
Interesting. Have a good day!
dharma is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dharma For This Useful Post:
Brihard (07-11-2017), Exodia (07-11-2017), rryan (07-11-2017)
Reply

Tags
714, begged, chicago, city, democratled, feds, sending, shootings, tbmfp, trump, year

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.