Post #55,862
10/9/02 9:18:51 PM
|
Drug Dealers
"Lilly - Answers that matter."
This is the corporate mantra/mission statement of the world's largest drug dealer, Ely Lilly. I just saw an ad - like a Coke or Pepsi ad but missing the supple breasts and mons venera of Britney - designed to prey on the poor dumb bastards who have bought into the idea that "drugs can fix my mind". Basically the message was - urge your doctor to write scrips for our drugs, and you'll be fine.
Meanwhile the prisons are full of dealers who hand out more effective solutions along these lines, namely cocaine, heroin, and synthetic alkaloids.
More and more I think - capitalism is a human disaster, and find myself slinking unobserved toward socialism. Workers of the world unite!
-drl
|
Post #55,871
10/9/02 9:49:44 PM
|
Nah!
I am just waiting for Jesus to come back and fix things. Get rid of the rotten ones, make a new Heaven and Earth, make everything all right.
It is possible to treat mental illneses without the use of drugs. It is, in some cases, a brain chestry issue. Eating the right foods may help balance out the brain chemestry that may be causing the mental illness. Or avoid eating certain foods may fix the chemical imbalance.
I am still adjusting a bit to my medication change, I am getting better but still not 100% yet. Antidepressants can really mess with your mind at times.
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #55,897
10/10/02 12:07:03 AM
|
Do you even *see* the hypocrisy?
"I am just waiting for Jesus to come back and fix things. Get rid of the rotten ones"
I thought the main tenet of christianity was that anyone could be saved. All of us are *God's* children. Must have misunderstood.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
|
Post #55,942
10/10/02 8:00:01 AM
|
Somewhat
but if the rotten ones are converted to good ones, then they are gotten rid of because they are born again. The old rotten person would then no longer exist.
Many people who are not Christians are still the good ones, IMHO.
Yes anyone can be saved, but they must first want to be saved. You cannot force it on anyone.
If Jesus came back, healed the sick and dying, did more miricles, brought about world peace, ened hunger and poverty, etc. Wouldn't it fix things?
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #56,010
10/10/02 1:37:54 PM
|
No
Eating of the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" has separated mankind forever from the rest of creation. "Behold, he is as we".
Mankind is on the bottom rung of godhood and every person must take responsibility for his/her own development. The promise of pushing responsibility off onto some "savior" is wishful thinking, and futile back sliding at best. The burden of individual responsibility should be accepted willingly, because it's inescapable anyway.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #56,004
10/10/02 1:25:09 PM
|
Jesus's schedule...
... is much less predictable than a Worker's Revolution...
I haven't got all day, you know...
jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)
|
Post #56,015
10/10/02 1:57:26 PM
|
Time to move this to "religion".
|
Post #56,069
10/10/02 5:57:07 PM
|
Or Politics?
Since the original discussion started off with drl swearing off Capitalism in favor of Socialism?
|
Post #56,200
10/11/02 11:24:46 AM
|
There's a difference?
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #56,070
10/10/02 5:58:01 PM
10/10/02 6:39:20 PM
|
Dup
Since the original discussion started off with drl swearing off Capitalism in favor of Socialism?
Edited by gdaustin
Oct. 10, 2002, 06:39:20 PM EDT
|
Post #56,074
10/10/02 6:38:11 PM
|
Exactly!
Many kids with ADHD are very effectively treated with behaviorial therapy, where parents are very diligent in keeping children on task, and children are taught coping techniques ( daytimers, to do lists, calendars, alarm watches ) to remind them of key tasks that must be completed.
Dr. Dobson has even said that a huge majority of ADHD cases are treatable by diligent parents without drugs, provided parents are willing to commit the time. The problem is that many parents today simply aren't or can't be committed enough (in a two job family), to stay with the person and help them make the change.
Many permanently recovered drug and alcohol addicts will testify to you that they tried every possible means to beat addition before they turned their life over to Jesus.
Then, with the help of committed counselors and accountability partners, these addicts were able to finally break their cycle of addiction. But, breaking this cycle of addiction meant completely changing their life. Where once they would hide and use in private, they had to be careful to always stay in public, connected and accountable to some other human being, who held them up to the standard of not using anymore.
The counselors have to be completely committed to being brutally honest, to be sometimes being even somewhat manipulative, to giving up lots of personal time, all to help this addict learn to live another way.
The reason I bring up the Christian connection is that I've found through experiences of former addict friends, that the chances of someone completely changing their life ( the Bible says being "born again", a new person ) without Jesus are very very slim. Now, I'll admit that I've never lived as a Muslim, Buddhist, or Jew, so I cannot speak if there are cases where this has happened definitively. One could argue that the psychological power of a "faith-based" change is strong enough to cure an addict, but I really believe that it takes something that goes much deeper.
And that is a spiritual change deep down in your soul. These addicts have to decide to live for Jesus, rather than living for themselves.
|
Post #55,874
10/9/02 9:52:06 PM
|
Socialism won't work
Capitalism makes the rich richer, Socialism gives too many people a free ride and knocks out growth, Communism of course is what almost killed the former USSR and almost killed China and is choking the life out of Cuba. We need to find an alternative to these three and fast.
How about Capitalism focused on Consumers instead of the MegaCorps?
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #56,084
10/10/02 9:18:23 PM
|
It's not an economic/political system problem...
The problem isn't with our political/economic system.
The problem is with the wickedness of our hearts.
The problems were the same in Jesus' time as today. The leaders are hypocrites, they tell people to do things and then they don't do the same. (Matthew 23)
Leaders demand to be served instead of being "public servants". People seek the power and control of the position.
Greed, lust, and money/power worship reign.
But these aren't problems that will be solved by communism, socialism, capitalism, or any other "ism".
They are solved by having honest/decent people in leadership, no matter what "ism" you subscribe to.
Paul practiced capitalism as a tentmaker. He built and sold his product as he witnessed to people in the marketplace.
Peter (Book of Acts) lead a group of people who practiced communism as every sold all they had and shared their belongings with others.
The key to a successful system isn't whether it is capitalism, communism, or socialism. The key is that we "love our neighbor as ourself". The key is that our leadership lives with integrity and commands respect because of their honest and selfless service.
You will tell me that this is a pipe dream, that I'm living in a fantasy world. But I will come back and tell you that it doesn't get better until we ascribe to better values.
|
Post #56,201
10/11/02 11:26:57 AM
|
The question is, (and it's a big one!) who's values?
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #56,231
10/11/02 1:06:40 PM
|
Answer
I used examples from the Bible, because I'm a Christian.
But, based on the popular notion that all religions point to the "same" morality that seems to popularize the media today, I think the answer still should be the same for everyone. (I know this isn't the case, but I want to make argument anyway.)
1. Always tell the truth.
2. Don't steal.
3. Don't kill.
4. Don't take unfair advantage of those weaker than you.
5. Be consistent in what you do and say.
6. Don't lust after the opposite sex.
7. Treat everyone you encounter with dignity and respect, even people you might personally consider to be idiots.
8. If someone treats you badly, don't seek revenge.
There are probably more for this list, but there's a start. The problem I find in most people want to make exceptions.
Always tell the truth, except for situations when it would hurt someone's feelings, or would cause you embarrasment.
Don't steal, unless it appears that someone doesn't really care about the item anymore.
Don't kill, unless the bastard defiled your holy place, or caused harm or death to someone close to you, or in wartime.
I think morality really is pretty black and white, but our pride keeps us from admitting it. When things become gray, there usually was a decision made upstream ( a decision made some time ago ) that is causing this decision to become fuzzy. Had morals not been originally compromised, you wouldn't be in the gray zone.
I find that occurs in a lot of custody cases. It's hard to determine custody because both parents don't deserve their child, based on past lousy behavior. But, the child's gotta go somewhere, and each parent is determined to punish the other to get their way. ( Maybe Solomon was wiser than we thought in getting out the axe. )
|
Post #56,296
10/11/02 9:54:56 PM
|
Re: Answer
"Don't lust after the opposite sex."
Huh? Who then? Gary the fairy?
I have, do, and will lust after the opposite sex, for the same reason that a pine cone falls and spreads its seeds. But I am not a pine cone. I am a man. I live. I see. I feel. I will die.
How pitiful is all religion. "Religere" - Latin, to tie fast (confer "ligament", "ligature"). To fix. To bind up. To truss up God with nonsense. To fix God with lies; human lies. To sit God in the electric chair. To lop off his head. To hang him high. To gas him. To cut off his balls. To have no humanity. Be God. Go to him. Amen.
-drl
|
Post #56,311
10/11/02 11:24:56 PM
|
There's a difference...
God's plan is for one man and one woman to meet, date, get to know one another, get engaged, get married, and do the dirty. (And have kids, and stay married, and enjoy each other your whole life ).
Lust is where you basically want to screw every woman you meet. Kind of like the Billy Crystal line from "When Harry Met Sally". I think the desire to screw everyone on the planet is more our own selfishness, pride, imagination,and sense of adventure than honest hormones.
But a person can pretty much talk himself into anything. So believe what you want, DRL...
|
Post #56,347
10/12/02 8:43:09 AM
|
It's Natural!
I went fishing last weekend. The water was very clear, and I had polarized sunglasses on, so I could see pretty far down into the water.
I wasn't having any luck with a diving lure I was using. So I tried an experiment - I dragged the lure in the clear water below the pier I was using. I noticed that if I dragged it at just the right speed, so that it developed just the right wiggle, the bluegill would instantly gather around it - like "boom" and they were there. If I dragged it faster or slower, no activity. Something about the speed and wiggle of the lure had to be *just right* to trigger the behavior.
Now, when a fine bottom goes shimmying by, I'm like a bluegill to a dragged lure. It's just nature. Does that mean I'm going to bite? Obviously not. I only bite if asked. :)
So, your religion asks you to deny what is most basic about you - your animal heritage. This is good? No - it's the origin of all evil. Religion may have been pertinent at some time, but now it's just historical baggage.
-drl
|
Post #56,375
10/12/02 1:31:00 PM
|
Diff between looking and acting on impulses
You're right about the wiggle thing. It does get our attention and that's OK.
It's when you start fantasizing about what you want to do with the other person that you start to get in trouble. It when your imagination gets ahead of building a relationship with the other person.
I dated my wife for 5 years. Lord knows I wanted to "do her" early on and she wanted the same very much. However, we managed to hold out until we were certain that we were committed to marriage before "doing it". It was very hard, but we had to let our relationship blossom in other ways (friendship, partnership, commitment) before we could do the fun stuff.
I just wish that men could somehow learn that women are people first, with feelings, sensitivities, opinions, and strengths and weaknesses. The sex part needs to come later as a result of a committed relationship.
But, because we are friends now, we have a great marriage, great kids, and I have a great family and church life.
On the other hand, I have an acquaintance at work who lets his tallywhacker do the talking, and he's about to destroy his 2nd marriage (the negative wife talk has already started), and by his third he probably won't even bother with the ceremony. He has two kids by two women (so far). I really feel sorry for him, because he can't seem to "get it right". Also, he's an acquaintence, not a friend, because he is so full of himself that it's really a joke around the office.
|
Post #57,661
10/18/02 6:51:23 PM
|
It is a flawed universe far from perfect
and we are all flawed in some way and fall short of God.
But not everyone believes, some have different values or no values at all.
Very few good people left on the planet, mostly opressed by the rich jerks and jerkettes who run the place.
As of today, I don't know what is real anymore. I don't know what is what, and I am totally confused. I am doing what I can to stay alive, but how long can I last before the illnes takes control again? I have been having a lot of negative thoughts, and they are beyond my control. I have no idea what to do, and I keep getting conflicting information. Death would be a release right now, I don't want to think about that but I can't help it.
[link|http://games.speakeasy.net/data/files/khan.jpg|"Khan!!!" -Kirk]
|
Post #57,729
10/18/02 9:59:19 PM
|
I am praying for you.
Nothing else useful to say at the moment, but I do pray.
--
We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #56,317
10/12/02 12:20:50 AM
|
RE: socialism choking the life out of Cuba.
Um, no. That would be us.
|
Post #56,338
10/12/02 7:01:30 AM
|
Why yes, but for their own good, like Iraqi population next-
|
Post #56,073
10/10/02 6:21:37 PM
10/10/02 6:45:15 PM
|
I think you're confused - DRL
Here's my take.
We already have a pretty large taste of socialism in this country, especially when you discuss things like regulated drug companies.
You're complaining about hypocrisy about the fact that Eli Lilly can legally mess with someone's mind with fun drugs like Prozac, but Bubba down the street isn't allowed to sell MJ to the masses.
Early in this century, we didn't have the FDA. Coca Cola allegedly bottled cocaine in their soda. Predecessors to heroin were freely available. Many of the "cancer cures" and other unregulated medicines sold in this country would amount to illegal drugs (stimulants, antidrepressives, sedatives, etc.) today or they were pure quackery (placebos).
The practice of medicine was hit and miss, and a good doctor was typically someone who "knows what works". Very few doctors were afforded the opportunity to attend a "real" medical school.
The outrage from the deaths and quackery from unregulated drugs created the FDA. With the advent of the FDA, companies then had a process to submit drugs to be tested and approved for general use and their effects on different populations ( children, the elderly, pregnant women ) documented.
Now, most everything under the supervision of the FDA is considered "medicine", and everything that is outside this realm is considered "criminal" or "herbal" (which is often under attack as criminal).
Now, I don't know if you want to advocate legalizing "criminal" drugs, or further restrict the accessibility of corporate drugs.
True capitalism would mean that anyone could sell any drug at any time, with perhaps some requirements to disclose the potential problems a person (or populations) might have in using the drug. Liability would fall to the seller of the drug, and resolution would be handled by a court. There would be no FDA, or some minimum organization that ensured that drugs that came to market had essential documentation. Individuals would be personally responsible for ensuring that the drug did not cause them to die, or damage key body organs, or cause them to inflict harm on other people. That's what most libertarians want.
Most socialists, want all drugs more strictly regulated, where it would take years of study and millions of dollars before Prozac comes to market (like it is here in the US), and then it would be offered at a generic (regulated) price immediately (Canada and Europe). In addition, criminal and "herbal" remedies would be similarly regulated, only available from a licensed doctor in a controlled situation.
Edited by gdaustin
Oct. 10, 2002, 06:45:15 PM EDT
|
Post #56,299
10/11/02 10:07:35 PM
|
Tell it to CRC
His new bairn will get freedom, loving parents, free education, and total medical care, including the dentist and optometrist. He will not see the Swedish army marching into Iraq. He will not get drafted to die for chickenhawks. He will have beautiful summers and winters, snow and blue skies, he will learn several languages, and his father will teach him how to cuss in all of them.
Such a terrible fate.
-drl
|
Post #56,310
10/11/02 11:17:29 PM
10/11/02 11:19:14 PM
|
Perhaps You Should Join Him?
If Sweden is so wonderful, then why don't you migrate there?
I have a friend who moves to other countries and lives there for about 5 years. So far he's lived in Germany and Australia.
I have friends from here that moved to England and didn't want to move back. And I've had English friends move here and they didn't want to go home either.
If you want to be a socialist, then puhhlease, move to Europe!
Then you can harass me from overseas...
Edited by gdaustin
Oct. 11, 2002, 11:19:14 PM EDT
|
Post #56,339
10/12/02 7:24:26 AM
|
Love It or Leave It, eh?
I'll bet it hasn't occurred to you that, given present circumstances there are apt to be quite a few emigr\ufffds, next. No one much "Love's" an Empire led by a Hun - at least not those who paid their tax money for a Republic, thought citizens voted and that their representatives represented. I never saw a Corporation worth allegiance.
If by accident I'd learned several lanuages fluently, as a child - I'd pick Denmark or Sweden next, myself. Probably I'll have to compromise among the obv Engl-spoken or tolerated instead, or bring a multi-lingual friend along (who won't be any happier in this next environment than I, is my guess). That is, unless these countries close their borders to potentially dangerous nationals from the Empire; ah well - challenges are rewarding.
Ashton
who doesn't Love it, so can Leave it about any old time - if this all gets just a bit more terminally ugly.
|
Post #56,349
10/12/02 8:47:12 AM
|
Re: Perhaps You Should Join Him?
Actually I'm trying for France. We'll see what the consulate says.
France has a parlimentary system, and sometimes - GASP! - a member of the Socialists becomes PM. Does this doom the French to tyranny? NO! In fact, look for them to kick our asses big time in aerospace in the 21 century.
-drl
|
Post #56,822
10/14/02 10:59:27 PM
|
Socialism would not be kind to you.
By advocating the stupor of drugs, you put self-indulgence ahead of your responsibility to the community. This would be frowned upon by every socialist state, and every socialist theory with which I am familiar. It is only in the "Me-First, Me-Only" self-obsessed West that drug use is completely out of hand. It is not tolerated in Socialist states.
|
Post #56,825
10/14/02 11:09:02 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you.
What?? Advocating the stupor of drugs? I rarely even take aspirin, and the odd antihistamine. I adovocate the decriminalization of drugs because it is a pointless drain on the prison system, which needs to be reserved for bad guys.
In any case, the states I'm thinking of are Scandinavia, France, and the Netherlands - all with sane approaches to drug abuse, and all with a strong committment to basic social needs like medical care, education, housing, and employment rights.
I have tried drugs, yes, and don't rule out trying them again should the occasion arise, but they are a non-issue in my own life.
-drl
|
Post #56,831
10/14/02 11:26:09 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular.
-drl
|
Post #56,832
10/14/02 11:27:07 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular.
-drl
|
Post #56,833
10/14/02 11:27:30 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular.
-drl
|
Post #56,834
10/14/02 11:27:51 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular.
-drl
|
Post #56,835
10/14/02 11:28:01 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular.
-drl
|
Post #56,836
10/14/02 11:29:09 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
-drl
|
Post #56,837
10/14/02 11:30:42 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies, unless of course they need to steal to buy expensive illegal drugs to support a habit, a need what would not exist if the market were eliminated - it is damaged by rightist corporate collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
-drl
|
Post #56,838
10/14/02 11:32:04 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies, unless of course they need to steal to buy expensive illegal drugs to support a habit, a need what would not exist if the market were eliminated - it is damaged by rightist corporate collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
-drl
|
Post #56,839
10/14/02 11:32:25 PM
|
Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2
You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies, unless of course they need to steal to buy expensive illegal drugs to support a habit, a need that would not exist if the market were eliminated - it is damaged by rightist corporate collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior.
-drl
|
Post #56,840
10/14/02 11:39:20 PM
|
What we have a case of here...
... is an incomplete trap of Maintenance Mode combined with Mr. Impatient Trigger Finger himself, apparently... ;-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #56,842
10/14/02 11:41:42 PM
|
Re: What we have a case of here...
Could you please delete all but the most recent one? I'm having trouble typing I'm laughing so hard...
-drl
|
Post #56,843
10/14/02 11:42:39 PM
|
Bahahaa...
No, I don't have the delete controls done yet. :-)
Besides, I think I'll leave this here as your own little Juice Of Sapphu...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #56,845
10/14/02 11:46:34 PM
|
What is That?
-drl
|
Post #56,853
10/14/02 11:58:25 PM
|
Re: What is That?
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapphu that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stain, the stain becomes a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #56,903
10/15/02 8:48:35 AM
10/15/02 9:01:20 AM
|
Is that a reference to the poetess...
...Sappho, of the Greek isle of Lesbos? Our Adminiscott wrote: It is by the juice of Sapphu that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stain... Sure looks like it could be something she -- or rather, one of her disciples -- wrote. Christian R. Conrad
Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971|Andrew Grygus]
Edited by CRConrad
Oct. 15, 2002, 09:01:20 AM EDT
|
Post #56,904
10/15/02 8:49:43 AM
|
Ooohh.... NICE Quick-Save button! :-)
|
Post #56,914
10/15/02 9:19:01 AM
|
It's from Dune
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #56,848
10/14/02 11:47:42 PM
|
You might as well make'm blink too
-drl
|
Post #56,859
10/15/02 12:13:23 AM
|
Do you favor more or less gov't?
Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. "Socialism" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior (in the economic sense).
|
Post #56,862
10/15/02 12:20:45 AM
|
More posts, at least.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #56,867
10/15/02 12:38:45 AM
|
Not At All
Socialism is the simplest sense is just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it - BORK! - just what it sounds like - a principle of government that recognizes that people have rights, but also *needs* - the need to be fed, housed, employed, and healthy. We have socialism here, only the needs met are of the already needless - that is, corporate welfare.
The key point is freedom - in a socialist state people can be free - it's likely that Scandinavians have more freedom than we do, in fact. Certainly the French do.
-drl
|
Post #56,908
10/15/02 9:00:44 AM
|
But then, neither France nor Scandinavia is "socialist"...
...at least in any sense of the word that Frenchmen or Scandinavians would recognize.
They're all free-market (="Capitalist") countries, where there just happens to be a broad consensus that society's responsibility for the welfare of its inhabitants (="Welfare State") should go a bit (quite a bit) further than in a free-for-all laissez-faire "Nightwatchman" state, and which SOMETIMES -- depending on how the latest general elections went -- are ruled by social-DEMOCRAT parties[*], which are a perfectly ordinary phenomenon in the pluralistic political environment(s) of Western Europe.
That's not "socialist" by a long shot.
You *know* you Merkins have fucked up not only the English language in general, but especially its political terminology, don't you?
[*]: Like Britain's Labour Party -- the one under Dubya's best friend Tony, you know? -- used to be, at least until they started trying to out-Thatcher the Conservatives with this "New Labour" thingy.
(Yeah, Ross, this turned out ot be a reply to MikeM almost as much as to you...)
Christian R. Conrad
Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #56,925
10/15/02 10:01:58 AM
|
Re: But then, neither France nor Scandinavia is "socialist"
Well, by socialist I certainly don't mean a Robin Hood society, rather a social democracy as you described it. For example, I believe business is as much a social institution as church or school, in that the executives and owners of the business have a moral if not legal responsibility to their workers. This was tacitly understood by the best US businesses in the past (IBM, Anheuser Busch come to mind - I mention the latter because old Gussie Busch always took a personal interest even in the lowest barrel-roller). Now it is common practice to see people as expendable "resources", like paper, steel, etc. - to be purchased at the lowest possible price and discarded when the bottom line is threatened.
-drl
|
Post #57,082
10/15/02 9:11:01 PM
|
Good post.
And I've said before this is the only ultra-conservative position I have. Yes, I know, when contrasted w/my other opinions/convictions it looks like a brain tumor is causing me to malfunction on this issue.
You know why socialism can never be achieved in the States? Because for far too many Muricans "It doesn't matter how much I have, I want more."
We do not know how to be self-less.
|
Post #57,081
10/15/02 9:07:16 PM
|
What is this?
"Say it enough times and it will become true"?
[only kidding]
A couple of fallacies I feel compelled to point out.
As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history.
Um, no, see any post of mine on the subject. And what has this got to do with using drugs?
because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit)
Um, no, not just if they steal (which presumeably they wouldn't have to if drugs were decriminalized, the cost should go down, at least somewhat). I don't want to be in coach if you've legally been taking drugs and you're the pilot in command, or school bus driver, or the guy running the 2 ton machine I'm under, or driving east on a 2 lane road I'm driving west on at the same time, (pattern should be obvious).
|
Post #57,085
10/15/02 9:14:03 PM
|
Re: What is this? What It Was
..was an incomplete trap in maintenance mode of Mr. Impatient Trigger Finger (moi) - I was maintaining my erstwhile (and intact) respect for you, while seething at the self-righteous nature of your upbraiding me. As will be seen, I settled into a happy equilibrium.
-drl
|
Post #57,127
10/16/02 8:38:14 AM
|
How about our favorite drug?
I don't want to be in coach if you've legally been taking drugs and you're the pilot in command ... How about alcohol? That's a legal drug. Just because it's a legal drug, does that mean it's legal to fly a plane while under the influence? Why, it seems not! Sorry for the sarcasm, but I hate arguments against legalization that treat alcohol differently. ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #57,452
10/17/02 8:00:09 PM
|
Here's a tip.
Some have "flashbacks" w/only moderate use of acid.
I've never heard of a "flashback" from anyone who moderately consumed alcohol.
Also, even with the arguably "lightest" illicit drug (marijuana), the active ingredient (THC) remains in lymph tissue for at least 90 days after a single use. Show me the booze that can do that trick.
Yes, alcohol is a drug. But it doesn't have the same staying power, nor (assuming moderate use again) the permanent mind altering qualities of some illicit substances.
In short, alcohol IS different ;-)
|
Post #57,494
10/18/02 9:00:38 AM
|
So it's testable, is it still active?
Unless I missed something in biology class, lymph tissues don't affect reasoning. So while THC may be testable much longer than alcohol, is it still active?
Of course, we can't possibly have a definitve answer to this as it is illegal to conduct clinical trials on THC to see what, exactly, it does
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #57,533
10/18/02 11:54:18 AM
|
Re: Here's a tip.
Flashbacks are a myth. LSD in the usually taken configuration (literally micrograms) does not produce flashbacks - as indeed it could not possibly do because it is metabolized within hours. It does produce permanent changes in perception, or I should say, interpretation of perception - for the better.
I assume the myth was the same kind of bogey-man scare as "reefer madness".
-drl
|
