🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <74sl9a$qok$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, in which a
one st...@dds.nl wrote:
> In article <oZ%b2.2041$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
>   tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:
> 
> > > Isn't a person a "thing" aswell?
> > No.
> 
> Hang on.  You went on to say some other things, but didn't justify your
> answer.  Why is a person not a "thing"?

The answer is evident in the use of pronouns - "he"/"she" refers to humans 
(and occasionally, replicas such as statues or dolls) and "it" refers to 
plants and various nonliving things.  Of course, any of them can be used for 
animals *other than humans* :)

> > This isn't about placing blame.  Yeah, that would be your fault cuz you
>  coulda
> > just downloaded the MP3 or whatever :P  But drugs are addictive.  And if you
> > try to say something like CDs or corn flakes are addictive too, well look at
> > nicotine.  'Nuff said.
> 
> Seriously, i get REALLY depressed if i don't hear any new music every week or
> two.  Now luckily there is a cheap alternative - i can go to parties instead
> of buying CDs...  I can browse the web for other amateur musicians and listen
> to MP3s or RAs.  I can listen to RAs on www.x-radio.com ...  I don't think
> there's anything wrong with feeling the way i do - i just love music, and i
> love to hear what's out there (even if it's shit).  I can totally understand
> people who feel the same way about their drug of choice.

And what about perverts who need to fuck something new everyweek - can you be 
just as sympethetic to them?

> > And these "frivolous lawsuits" could have been prevented if cigarettes and
> > stuff were never grown in the first place.
> 
> But that AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.  There is NO WAY you will destroy all drugs. 

Yeah, just like the perfect society ain't gonna happen either.

> You cannot get rid of drugs, you can only deal with them as best
> possible - and the best way to deal with them is to legalize.

Oh, right, the best way to deal with any crime is to legalize it.

> > Well think about the peole who have been smoking since they were pre-teens
>  and
> > are too far into it.
> 
> I was smoking for 6 years before now.  Yes, i started smoking pre-teen as
> well (if you consider 12 to be pre-teen).  I quit.  People CAN quit.  It's
> not easy, but it can be done.  The physical addiction is only part of it -
> crack the psychological addictino and the rest follows.

To throw another cliche at you, "The best way to quit is to not get started."
If people didn't start in the first place, they wouldn't be in this mess.  And 
if they weren't allowed to start, all the better.

> > Maybe you didn't know this, but smoking was actually
> > advertized as *healthy* in the mid-30's or so.  So by the time the Surgeon
> > General's warning is stamped on, it's too late for them to quit.
> 
> Yes i know this.  But i don't agree that it was too late to quit.  And, this
> is going to open a whole nother can of worms, people who are stupid enough to
> get misled by advertizing probably deserve whatever they get - especially if
> there are no government measures to prevent misleading advertizing like in
> the 30s.

Maybe they do deserve whatever they get.  But that doesn't mean we should make 
it easier for them to get it.

> > > That's why i said this line: "conservatism is necessary because humans
>  need
> > > time to adjust to the current level before continuing".
> > OK, but even *with* the conservatives, if there are enough liberals around
>  to
> > change everything, *eventually* the world will go to chaos.
> 
> Eventually, yes.  And it will be a Good Chaos.  But that is many thousands of
> years into the future.

No chaos is good chaos.  Just because people are idiots and vote for chaos 
doesn't mean they're doing the right thing.

> > > > By the way, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
> > > Pro-choice of course.
> > OK, now tell me: Why is killing OK as long as the victim isn't born yet?
> 
> Because the whole idea behind a right to life is that it is a right.  The
> right to life is fundamentally just a right to choose.  The right to choose
> your own destiny.  Unborn babies (and indeed most babies till 3 months or so)
> don't even have a sense of self, so they therefore cannot be capable of
> choosing their own destiny.  If you kill someone who has no sense of self,
> their right to choose hasn't been violated, because they didn't have one in
> the first place.

No one wants to die.  And to you know how gruesome the abortion process is?

> > > Being gay is a sexual preference.  It's hard-wired, it's quite likely
> > > genetic.
> > Possibly it's genetic.
> 
> Well i can remember the details exactly, because it doesn't really interest
> me, but i do know that scientists are pretty sure that they've isolated a
> certain gene which always appears in homosexuals, but they haven't found out
> what the precise identifier is on that gene which makes a person homosexual. 
> The biological lingo in there is probably wrong, but that's the gist of it.

They only reached that conclusion cuz they wanted to.  The evidence was set up 
for them to get the desired conclusion.  Sounds like something you said about 
psychologists a long time ago, hmm?

> > More likely, it's caused by some incident that happens
> > during childhood.
> 
> That's what the Christian church wants you to believe...

Maybe it is caused by genes sometimes, maybe a hormone imbalance, or a 
horrible childhood incident, or any combination.  I think it's different in 
each case.  

Supposing though that it was caused by nature rather than nurture - does that 
legitamize it?  If they found out that most killers and rapists have a 
defective gene, would that make it right?  Would it be OK for them to do as 
they do?

> > > Being sad in general can be a mental disorder - hard-wired and quite
>  likely
> > > genetic.  Being sad about specific things is a choice.
> > Feelings aren't choices.  That's like saying the starving Ethiopian kids are
> > choosing to be hungry.
> 
> They feel hungry because their body is not getting enough glucose so it's
> automatically sending a message to the brain to feel hungry.  You can't
> change that - it's biological.  Sadness about death is not biological.  If it
> were biological, as soon as someone died - even if you didn't know they had
> died - the chemical reaction for sadness would take place in the brain.  But
> in order to feel sad about someone's death you first have to know about it,
> therefore it is not a biological/physical reaction - it's a psychological
> one.

OK, that was a bad example.  But still, emotions are not decisions - the 
choice is how you react to them.  No one, no matter how they try, can control 
their emotions.

> > But suicide, and drugs, and abortion, they all affect more than the person
> > making the decision.
> 
> No they don't.  Suicide only affects the person who dies, unless of course
> they have debts to others.  

It affects their families and friends.

> Drugs only affect the user unless they do something stupid like attack
> someone else while they're high - but that's the person's fault, not the
> drugs'.  

Maybe it's a combination.  Ever here of DUI - Driving Under the Influence?  
It's not just the person doing something, not just the drugs, but both.  So 
they are both responsible.

> Abortion affects only one person - the mother.

And the father, and the grandparents, and most importantly the baby itself.

> > And I thought you said you cared about the human species as a whole.  The
> > science lab thing is just a tad far fetched.
> 
> I care about the human species as a whole.  If they all choose to kill
> themselves, then sobeit.  They were obviously a fuck of a lot more stupid
> than i took them to be.  But really, it'd never happen.  What is important is
> that the human species survives and grows to its maximum potential.  If
> 4,999,999,999 people are liable to kill themselves, they obviously aren't
> humankind's maximum potential.
> 
> The science lab thing is not far-fetched at all.  There are thousands of IVF
> labs around the world which have human eggs and sperm stored in freezers.
> They're designed for scientific research, but they could theoretically be used
> to repopulate the world if necessary.

I know, and even cloning is possible now.  It's just far-fetched that you'd 
figure out how to use these things ;)

> > > From an ethical point of view it is better not to eat meat because we
> > > shouldn't have the right to just kill animals the way we do.  There are in
> > > fact no positive arguments for eating meat other than "i like it".  Eating
> > > meat is even less defensible than taking drugs.
> > But you were just defending guns with hunting animals as a prime example.
> 
> I didn't say hunting was okay, i said some people do it as recreation.  Ie
> their purpose is recreation, not killing.  That killing is a side-effect is
> irrelevant in the context in which i mentioned it.  But if you want to look
> at it in the greater picture, then yes, hunting is bad.  And people really
> should only be using guns as recreation by shooting targets and clay pigeons.

Well, sometimes they need to thin out their numbers.  I guess it's acceptable 
then too.

> > > Says who?  Maybe when Adam ate the first apple he got really high, but
>  then
> > > it became such a staple food that humankind have built up a resistance to
> > > it.
> > Human kind didn't all come from Adam and Eve.  That was just a myth that was
> > used to explain things to epople in the olden days.
> 
> You know what i mean.

OK, maybe apples do make some animals hallucinate.  That doesn't mean it's bad 
for our kind.  Just like saccharin (sp?) in gum will give rats cancer.  It 
doesn't mean chewing gum will hurt our kind.  We have a different genetic 
structure than rats, what's OK for one species isn't necessarily OK for 
another.  And illicit drug abuse (to be specific for Mark) isn't ok for
anyone in our species.

> > Yes, there are sugar highs.  Have you ever seen these six year old kids
>  stock
> > up on Pez or Skittles, then go and act like the Power Rangers for ten
>  minutes?
> > At least there's no permanent brain damage involved there.
> 
> Where are you getting the idea that it's terribly damaging?

It is damaging.  That's why there are laws against them here.  There might not 
be laws against alcohol (anymore) and they might be legal somewhere else, but 
the point is, they did make these laws against drugs for a reason.  They 
didn't just do it to stop people from having fun.

> > > 150 years ago someone said "man, flying?  can't happen" too.  Anything is
> > > possible.  Even if we don't sprout wings and fly, we can do the next best
> > > thing - get in a plane and fly.  Even if we don't eliminate all
> > > murderers/rapists/thieves etc in the future we can try do the next best
> thing
> > > and get rid of MOST of them.
> > While we're at it, why don't we get rid of the drug users too?  It's just
> > another crime.
> 
> Because drug users aren't committing a crime toward others.  They're only
> hurting themselves, so (according to your logic) they'll all kill themselves
> off eventually anyway.

Which is a Bad Thing.  If loss of life can be stopped, then by all means, stop 
it.

> > > Nah, then they could've gone to a prostitute.  They wanted that sexual
>  power
> > > over the person.
> > Or maybe they want sex with a specific person.
> 
> You make it sound like most rape victims are particularly attractive... 
> They're not - they're often just normal people.

Again, it's different in each case.  Sometimes, that might be the case (where 
they want sex with one person).  That doesn't nexessarily mean good looks.

> > > Remember we talked about this on agmk a few months ago.  But the feeling
>  of
> > > having sexual power over someone would be greatly reduced if everyone
>  walked
> > > round naked and sex was simply a matter of saying "you feel like some? 
>  yup?
> > > *thrust thrust*  thanks, i'll seeya".
> > Maybe, but we're not animals, we're people.
> 
> We are animals.  Humankind is an animal species, as opposed to a plant
> species.

OK, technically we are - but we're better.  We're at the top of the food 
chain.  We have the responsibility to act better, and even if we don't live up 
to that responsibilty it's still there.

> > Similarly, people at a funeral are mad at drugs rather than the user who got
> > killed from them.
> 
> The government not giving someone money is quite different to a drug which
> can't give or not give anything.  The government is an entity which has
> chosen not to provide sufficient support for the poor.  Drugs are inanimate
> objects - they can't DO anything; whatever a person does when they're high on
> them is the responsibility of the person.

Drugs do things.  They can "cure" diseases, as you said, they can kill your 
brain cells.  Even if people are responsible for their effects, illicit drugs 
are still different than apples and oranges.

> > > Yes we could.  And we SHOULD.  It's important to look at things which are
> > > considered crimes regularly, because it's important to know whether or not
> > > they are still valid in our society.
> > Maybe you should think about why they are crimes in the first place.
> 
> Well that's exactly what i was saying?!

Then answer the question - why *are* drugs illegal?

> > > where non-Christians would be burnt at the stake,
> > Don't know which country you're talking about.
> 
> Howsabout the whole of Europe during the Dark Ages?  What about the Crusades
> during the Middle Ages where thousands of Arabs were killed because they
> didn't believe in the Christian God?  What about witch hunting (which was
> just an excuse to kill anyone who wasn't Christian)?

God didn't say to do that - the people chose to.  Those people wanted to kill 
non Christians, not God.  God in fact said to do the opposite (Thou shalt not 
do murder)

> I think if drugs were legalized, we'd be a step closer to getting those people
> to go away...  I think it's the control and the policing which is causing a
> great deal of the problems.  It might just be wishful thinking, but that's
> what i believe.

I think you'll believe whatever you have to as long as it supports the 
legalizing of drugs.  First it's an "insignificant increase" and now it's
actually a decrease.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|