Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1434

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Use of dope  often impairs driving. Alcohol (which is legal) is responsible for  tens of thousands of deaths  in driving mishaps. If dope is legal it will be used by some drivers (even though that use is illegal)  and there will be additional deaths.   If all dope were legalized tomorrow,  I predicted the body count would go up the following year.....

Anything that impairs driving or distracts the driver is bad news,  be alcohol,  dope,  lack of sleep, of the distraction of cell phones.

Dope is used by some drivers now.

--Brant

hotels, btw, are where you buy some sleep--when the govamint said sleeping was illegal only criminals slept and hotels went bust replaced by park benches

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could say something intelligent about drug legalization, but I never worried about the government when I was an active hardcore addict. The government was irrelevant.

What I mean is I rarely had trouble getting hard drugs to get high. The fact that they were illegal didn't mean a damn thing. If they had been legal, it would have been the same. 

Just throwing in my two cents from the wild side...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Korben maybe in your case it's a good thing drugs are illegal because you obviously have issues with critical thinking.  Instead of telling me to fuck off provide a solid argument.  Swearing at me means you already lost...

Who knows?  Wonder what Trump would do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my profile blurb is your argument?  Yeah that's what I thought.  Oh wait I forgot its "the poor childrennnn will get high if the gooberment doesn't save us all from ourselves."  

Guess what?  I don't drink orrrr do drugs and it isn't because one is legal and one isn't.  It is my own choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

 Guess what?  I don't drink orrrr do drugs and it isn't because one is legal and one isn't.  It is my own choice.

Not doing is the other side of the coin from doing--the coin of addiction. Admit it--you are an addict of not (or nor not if a liar)

--Brant

get thee to a Playboy bunnery! (and take some pics!)

hic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:
9 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Guess what?  I don't drink orrrr do drugs and it isn't because one is legal and one isn't.  It is my own choice.

Not doing is the other side of the coin from doing--the coin of addiction. Admit it--you are an addict of not (or nor not if a liar)

--Brant

get thee to a Playboy bunnery! (and take some pics!)

hic!

Don't you mean naught here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:
On 9/1/2016 at 1:06 AM, KorbenDallas said:

"All government controls are bad" because they effect choice so legalize everything, right?  But why legalize drugs that are inimical to man's life?

The rational won't likely choose them, the irrational might---many do---and then minors who aren't epistemologically ready for independent decisions.  As I said before, there is demand that isn't being met among adults and minors for marijuana or hard drugs, they want them but can't get their hands on them, so there's not an equilibrium now.  Additionally, if the drugs were legalized it creates new demand, which shifts the demand curve to the right.  Once supply is increased (and suppliers) you have more users---much more of them---including minors because the drugs are easier to obtain.

So I think Objectivism got it wrong here, I think drug laws should have been added to one of the functions of government in Objectivism.  It's a fact that (concretized) drugs are inimical to man's life, the government isn't telling the rational what to do because we're likely not to choose them anyway, but the irrational and minors might, and the drug laws would---and do---help the irrational be less irrational and help the minors stay out of trouble.

That would make Objectivism conservatism. The philosophy is not a bunch of barnacles you can just add your own barnacle onto.

How do you know about this "demand" thing?

How do you know supply will increase?

Again, you don't seem to know the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

Using legalization correctly.  No, Objectivism isn't "a bunch of barnacles".  Demand/supply from research, observation of reality, induction, speaking with professionals, validating, refining.  You're not getting more than that out of me.

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Drugs--I assume you mean recreational drugs--"are inimical to man's life"? Are you sure? I think some are, some aren't and some I don't know. In fact, I think the whole subject is up in the air.

Are you sure?  (rhetorical)

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

But who decides for "man"? What man? You the man? You have made your own choices and I have made mine. I do not choose for you. You want to choose for me.

No, I don't want to choose for you or think for you.  Think for yourself, I think for myself.  You're restating some of what Rand said, which I already read and fully understand, and like I said before I disagree with.  Here is some of what Rand said (ref: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ayn_Rand_Drugs.htm ):

Quote

I do not approve of any government controls over consumption, so all restrictions on drugs should be removed (except, of course, on the sale to minors). The government has no right to tell an adult what to do with his own health and life. That places a much greater moral responsibility on the individual; but adults should be free to kill themselves in any way they want.

I would fight for your legal right to use marijuana; I would fight you to the death that you morally should not do it, because it destroys the mind. What the government should do is protect citizens from the criminal consequences of those who take drugs. But drugs would be much cheaper if it weren’t for government.

Sounds like a good way to end the conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About law vs drugs:   I suspect that, perhaps contrary to what some Objectivists believe, that most people are mostly rational in most things most of the time. But they need information. So if people are informed of the dangers of drugs and alcohol and tobacco, with evidence and logic, they probably will respond to this information with a rational decision motivated by self interest. On the other hand if they are not informed but there is a law against the drug, they might say "what a stupid #$%^ law" and do it in spite of the law. So my suggestion for the the so-called war against drugs would be information is more effective than law. That could translate to reason is more effective than force.

I could give plenty of examples from my own life where I made decisions based on information and self interest and not based on law.

The information does not need to come from government. There are good doctors (defined as doctors whose patients get well, not defined by government approved credentials) who provide information about poisons.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:
13 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Korben maybe in your case it's a good thing drugs are illegal because you obviously have issues with critical thinking.  Instead of telling me to fuck off provide a solid argument.  Swearing at me means you already lost...

Many days ago, Troy was lost:

That was the most annoying post I never read.  Dumb F#%k.

0
 
0 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a random thought about Trump.

Immigration, trade, terrorism,. etc., are his big campaign issues. Underlying it all is making America and Americans come first.

I think there is even deeper intellectual ballast.

Trump wants to reestablish the rule of law as opposed to the rule of any one person's whim. And the kind of law he means (for America) is the American republic kind of law, the kind the framers of the constitution set up. When you look at any of his proposals, you see reestablishing the rule of law at the root. That's one of the big problems he wants to fix and it permeates everything.

The only other principle I see used as equal intellectual ballast in Trump's thinking is making good deals or using common sense where deal-making is not relevant.

Those two principles are not super-philosophical, but they are pretty damn good ones for the current situation. Hell, I'll take them in any situation.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mark, for the link to Trump’s “written” immigration policy:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.  2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.  3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans. Make Mexico Pay For The Wall.  end quote

That is well written, Mr. Trump and I couldn’t have done much better myself from a little “o” Objectivist point of view. But do we share a border with Mexico or do they have a border, and do we also have a border? It is more than semantics if the U.S. insists Mexico help pay for a wall. No arbitrator would insist Mexico pay for any un-owed debt, or fees not incurred in America, by Mexico. But if through negligence, Mexico or America allow illegal immigration, then I can see a “World Court” estimating the losses to one country due to rounding up illegals and deporting them. Would a shared wall be required to directly bisect both countries, right down the middle, or would allowances we made for topological reasons? I was looking at Troy's beautiful photo and I was just wondering. The kid in me says, I wish I had a fort right on the side of that gorge.    

Mark also linked the ARI Watch which printed Harry Binswanger writing: The border between the U.S. and Mexico (and between the U.S. and Canada) should be exactly like the border between Connecticut and Massachusetts:  you see ‘Welcome to Massachusetts’ and otherwise you are unaware of the difference. end quote

I dinna agree with ya’ laddie. But Harry, I was just reading how lax our northern border with Canada is. Many crossings work on the “honor system.”  You might take a boat trip east, across a lake which ends in Maine. You are expected to walk up to a camera on the dock, pick up a phone and tell them who you are, and how long your stay will be. The camera is easily evaded, and there are a lot of wilderness areas where you can just walk across the border. But there is an obvious difference with our southern border. And how will Canada react when thousands of celebrities try to migrate to Canada after Trump is elected? They promised. Donald should shame them with one of his hilarious impressions of mentally disabled people, after he hangs the traitor Hillary Clingon, on the Capital Mall. Bring your picnic lunches!

Peter

What should our policy be towards illegal space aliens? Thanks to my granddaughter for a link to The Build–A–Bear Startrek website: Spock is the half-Vulcan, half-human first officer aboard the Starship Enterprise. Though his logical side makes him seem cold and distant, he will do anything for his friends and crew. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

They promised. Donald should shame them with one of his hilarious impressions of mentally disabled people...

Peter,

Then again there's this from Ann Coulter (dated August 31, 2016)

MEDIA INVENTED LIE ABOUT TRUMP MOCKING DISABLED REPORTER

I already linked to the site she talked about that debunks the claim. It's somewhere around here, but it's good to see it mentioned by a mainstream person like Ann.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really encouraging watching Trump making course corrections on the fly. He's literally learning as he is doing and is finding his voice. Donald's improvement as a candidate is truly amazing. :D

Now more than ever  America needs a spontaneous President who can wing it as he goes, and can shoot from the hip.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2016 at 10:29 AM, KorbenDallas said:

turkeyfoot, he's still lost.

So many trees...

If I were a woman I'd say "Boys are being boys" and smile indulgently.

Since I'm a man, "@RTY&(**&&*&^%ET*&^&%^%%++_+))+&*^^%$$##$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

--Brant's no better

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moralist said:

It's really encouraging watching Trump making course corrections on the fly. He's literally learning as he is doing and is finding his voice. Donald's improvement as a candidate is truly amazing. :D

Now more than ever  America needs a spontaneous President who can wing it as he goes, and can shoot from the hip.

Greg

Not literally enough true, fortunately. Presidents might be spontaneous with the mouth--clarifications to follow--not with policies. Nobody is going to let Trump actually shoot from the hip. He will not act contrary to his NSC, something I think Obama does. Obama doesn't have Trump's shoot from the hip psychology, but he damages the security of this country. I don't think Trump will.

Trump habitually hires the best talent and I expect him to continue to do so. If elected I expect that talent to describe, refine and generally characterize his presidency. The President is like a stagecoach driver with his horses doing most of the real work. He can't make his horses turn in Pegasuses, he can only let then run--do their horse thing.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasmussen polls have the derby in a dead heat. I watched Trump briefly doing some voodoo crap in a black church. He looked very uncomfortable and very undignified. That will almost guarantee the footage will make it to the nightly news. 

Peter 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:
On 9/2/2016 at 1:29 PM, KorbenDallas said:

turkeyfoot, he's still lost.

So many trees...

If I were a woman I'd say "Boys are being boys" and smile indulgently.

Since I'm a man, "@RTY&(**&&*&^%ET*&^&%^%%++_+))+&*^^%$$##$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

--Brant's no better

Your boy might have been on a "boys being a boy" premise but I can assure you that doesn't describe my actions.

--Korben "knows" better

(and, a bit sick of the sanctioning)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now