3,511 Forum Posts by "JudgeDredd"
At 5/5/11 08:29 PM, poxpower wrote: That question is so removed from reality that it's pointless to answer.
Statistics might say otherwise.
It's like asking: would you be ok with wars if no one had to die or be injured?
Cars are legal but deadly. Drinking is legal but deadly. Put the two together.. generally lethal.
If two things we love so much become lethal when mixed, then make a safe place for it, and banish repeat drunk-drivers to go live there. The alternative is they keep living where the rest of us live and keep killing people, or until finally we lock them up and throw away the key.
For instance, here in NZ there's a group that gets together every year to get drunk and shoot guns. As long as they do it at the designated place, on the designated date, i really don't give a shit. The point is thou, they actually have somewhere to behave like idiots, and the likelihood of behaving like that around the rest of us is therefore reduced, simply because they are not secretly harboring a desire to do "something you're not allowed to do". (reverse psychology)
At 5/2/11 09:47 AM, TomFulp wrote: "Man, those were crazy times back then."
And i joined the crazyness on NG around then.
What can i say, America got their man, it took 10 years, but it's "Job Done!" Congrats.
Look forward to the redesign. :)
At 4/20/11 03:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The US is no stupider than any other country.
*chuckle*
Our lack of world knowledge tends to be a symptom of our size, power, and relative geographical isolation.
Do you know the meaning of geographical isolation?
Any world learning is superfluous to darn near anyone who does not go to college, and even then still only relevant on a situational basis.
Since America has a tendency to war with other countries to spread democracy and American influence, i'd suggest there would be more than a "superfluous" need to know something about these countries, or at the very least, a general knowledge of what it is everyone is actually voting for.
At 4/30/11 04:54 PM, Warforger wrote: Buuut then it's not that bad, currencies are determined by how many of it are around as well as how good the country is... this also means that a world wide inflation means that everyone's currency is going at the same rate so it would be worth the same... Or at least that's what I understand, if there's something I'm not getting I'm not an economist.
Correct, but what you've described is only classical inflation (like money printing, or economic wellbeing) some of which is present today. As you suggest, Mozambique, Greece, Iceland, Japan, and even America are of current concern regarding government mismanagement.
Less classical is business related. Bubbles and burst bubbles, where banks are often behind the "printed money".
Depleted resources such as "peak oil" is more a 21st century inflationary trend, as although we know resources are limited, they haven't in most previous cases run out. Extinction of fisheries is a good example.
But there's also a public element to inflation like panic buying. War or disaster would generally depresses the economy, and depressed economy means reducing prices, but basics can becoming scarce meaning prices will go the other direction, so it's not a clear correlation between falling economy and falling prices.
Another would be distrust of money (ie. too heavily taxed) or a general reluctance to hold any monetary assets. Owning your own house, growing veges, and doing online barter trade would mean that money is "worthless to you". If more people went this way, then inflation might result. Since inflation has tendency to create more inflation, as people quickly decide that the cost of foods warrants growing their own, the producers then have to adjust to a shrinking market, but price per unit is linked to turnover.
Technology could also play a part if more of us can produce our own power, drinkable water, etc. Alternatively we might develop smaller home fabrication units satisfying more of our own needs, and increasing barter trade, and so on. Thus, the quantity printed money is not the whole issue with inflation.
.
At 5/1/11 11:37 AM, Yorik wrote: More like 0/10. Thanks for playing!
"watch an unrelated and staged work of fiction."
LOSER!!!
At 5/1/11 11:11 AM, Yorik wrote: I think we are done here.
+1
At 5/1/11 10:26 AM, Yorik wrote: How is that the biggest problem? What about people still killing themselves and each other by driving drunk?
Well sure, if i said the biggest problem is drunk drivers killing innocent sober drivers, then i'd expect the customary "No shit Sherlock, meet my cousin Captain Obvious".
To know why CONSTANTLY preaching the "DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!" message to young minds is a bad thing, you'd have to watch Derren Brown's "Trick Or Treat" (episode 2, season 2) where within a few minutes he gets a young cat-loving girl to kill a kitten live on TV by using negative reinforcement.
And actually having to pay the taxes that funds its construction and maintenance?
You are already paying for idiot-proof roads.
And having to pay people to clean up the wrecked cars and human corpses?
If someone is determined to keep drink driving (most are repeat offenders) then how would killing themselves on a highway exclusively for drunks be so terrible, say compared driving along a lot of back roads (to avoid cops) where kids are playing?
..at least it's not a money pit.
Prison is the only sure way to stop a recidivist drink driver, and that's a much bigger money pit than some highway walls and a sign.
At 5/1/11 08:50 AM, Yorik wrote: Where do you think they're going to be driving when they get off of the drunk highway?
The biggest problem i see at the moment is the you and i don't ever drink drive, yet we get constantly bombarded with drink-drive messages like WE are the fucken idiots. When kids are idiots on skateboards we make skateboard parks. This is the 'skateboard park' for drunk drivers, and once you have them obeying the use of such a highway, then you can more easily evaluate the problem from there.
I mean, is it any more stupid an idea than a 2000 mile wall between Mexico and the USA?
.
At 5/1/11 03:09 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: tune in next time for World war 3.
I think most of us would settle for World Revolution 1.
And in case you're wondering;
- there's a wall along the median strip. (no head on collisions)
- there's a taxi stand at both ends, as well as video protected free parkng.
- a donut shop just past each exit. :)
Somewhere between the Anarchy topics, the Drug topics, or perhaps the Right to Suicide topics, is a greater desire for personal freedom of choice. The logical conclusion of which always seems to be that YOUR personal freedom, in some cases at least, conflicts with the personal freedoms of others.
Purely as a thought experiment a "highway for drunk drivers" is a walled highway designated for intoxicated drivers, where the only damage one can cause is to themselves, their vehicles, or other intoxicated drivers.
Putting aside the cost of medical treatment, the loss felt by loved ones, the proximity of house and bar to on-ramp and exit-ramp, and so on and so forth... the highway would be void of careful sober drivers and their families.
In such a scenario you are giving individuals incredible freedom to behave like an idiot. The rest of us would be saying stuff like "hope they kill themselves" or "better there than on my street".
Thoughts?
At 4/30/11 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you think the cartels will sit back lightly and watch their multi (b)illion dollar business disappear? I really doubt US production of [illegal] drugs would lower violence. My hypothesis is that it will escalate violence, and that violence will occur here.
I think your analysis is 100% correct. But only in relation to US Pharmaceutical Cartels.
"Cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms" -wikipedia
Moonshine ain't modern alcohol production.
As we're talking about modern moonshine..
At 4/30/11 08:46 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: SOMEBODY'S UOTD.
Gah, i somehow feel that own my chances just reduced ..again. :P
passes bong to Rydia
At 4/30/11 09:03 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: What resources are we talking about?
For argument sake, let's just say worldwide runaway inflation. ie. collapse of all currencies.
Oh and i just want to point out that the elephant in the room is now a rampaging psycho-elephant.
At 4/30/11 10:17 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/30/11 09:56 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: It ignores that we've gone from barbaric times to civilized times to hi-tech times, but why let a little thing like evolution and progress cloud the very dark nature of the human spirit.How does this change anything?
Because it allows us to offer our cynical world view via the internets to a world audience. :P
Right, and people in America still die today producing moonshine no doubt.Moonshine is very different. First off moonshining is a small operation.
Modern alcohol production is NOT a smalltime operation.
Legalizing drugs in the US isn't going to change the fact that violent cartels in Latin America produce most of the stuff. These cartels would still compete violently even if they were legal.
So price has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that America cannot possibly grow poppies or coca plants in any quantity?
At 4/29/11 02:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: They will just move on to the next profitable criminal activity and nothing will change.
I understand what you are saying. Criminals will be criminals. Drug users will be drug users. Innocent people will die other ways. Governments will waste money or bankrupt themselves other ways. Cops will still need guns, be corruptible and overzealous, and so on.
It ignores that we've gone from barbaric times to civilized times to hi-tech times, but why let a little thing like evolution and progress cloud the very dark nature of the human spirit.
if we legalize the demand it will not change the production's problems.
Right, and people in America still die today producing moonshine not doubt.
At 4/29/11 01:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This isn't a situation where there is a pressing need to change the status quo, or even a need of mild importance.
How many countries need to go bankrupt (leading to revolution and wars) before a guy like you connects the dots only to realize you're too late? I mean we can give you a list of countries right now. It's quite a long list, but i imagine it's worth compiling. Or are you totally disinterested?
Woah, this next one sounds good..
"Curtis is currently finishing a new documentary for the BBC, [11] called 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace'"
At 4/29/11 12:45 PM, PremierMeridian wrote: Quotaism..
I have posted this because I want to know what you think, not to convert you, and would like to know if you see any flaws within the system.
Hi PremierMeridian, Welcome to NGP. Congrats on a decent first posting!
Okay, i hope i read it correctly, but unfortunately it is flawed. There's a BBC doco by Adam Curtis which covers this, and i could look up the exact episode if you want me to, but i'll just give a link for starters. It's either The Century of the Self, or another one of his.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century _of_the_Self
Anyway, it shows that Russia reached a peak of production thru socialism, but then it became too complex to keep track of, so that just as they were beginning to examine the possibility of computerizing all the complexities of a top-down decision process, it all started unraveling. The example given was a train full of goods that got sent across the country, and then when it reached it's destination, it then got sent back and forth a few more times still carrying the same load, because the transport company was essentially paid for mileage of tonnes transfered. ie. a quota.
Of course the countries head computer guy suggested that their computer systems were not funded enough to handle the vast amounts of data that the whole of the Russian system was capable of producing, especially since they only had large tape backup systems in the '60s or '70s.
I think today thou, we are close to reaching a computational and informational level where an open transparency of checks and balances would be sufficient, and i remain optimistic that an public internet structure will be robust enough to handle it.
The next issue then would be that quotas are generally assigned to production, but that production alone doesn't constitutes healthy happy lives, and in recent times, it's started to be the bane of the Capitalist system, since the environment gets overlooked. This is where we need new value systems and greater sharing, but from what i've seen that's not happening as well as it could, as production still is king, and is likely to get worse (cheap labor vs robots) before it gets better.
At 4/29/11 11:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I am only defending the moral distinction our society has made, whether it be perfect or wholly flawed.
And why would you defend something that might be wholly flawed, when this in no way affects you, since you don't even drink. There's no point saying "the state has such-and-such a law to protect people's health and safety" when you don't even care about any of the consequences of such a law.
At 4/17/11 03:58 PM, darkrchaos wrote: I think most crimes should have the punishment of death. They don't learn anything in jail..
I thought they learn to rape each other. >_<
..
Look if the burden of proof was set higher, there would be less false accusations, and would make real victims less suspect. But more importantly, devices aiding the burden of proof would become more widely available, and cheaper. An audio camera is a pretty good start. Make them nano sized and put them into all locations. Problem solved.
New problem. No privacy. But who really cares, as there's no stopping it.
At 4/28/11 04:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If this were a real argument, shouldn't it be focused at anti-suicide laws instead of anti-drug laws?
Funkbrs and i are just presenting the extreme ends of the same argument. Mine about cycle helmets. Funk's about suicide and overdose. When the state endeavors to "protect everyone", they are really just pandering to one person's tragedy that makes the news. The kid who got splattered riding a bike. The parents of some other kid who offed himself. Really thou, it might as well be the same kid who decided the best way to end all it is turn suddenly on a bike without caring to look.
The point is you can't protect people like that. Meanwhile people like me who grew up riding a bike for years without a helmet, feels the helmet deadens my sense perception. It makes it more dangerous, not less dangerous. Then you have cops who treat these "protective laws" with extreme overkill, turning innocent people into victims. Soon you have a sarcastic society full of semi-suicidal malcontents and nutjobs guzzling toxic alcohol, and then driving cos their so blind with it all. (ie. no different to the kid on the bike)
That's how real life is! But you're just here to feel superior, because you believe you're following every law to the letter, and people who don't are inferior. Defending the states position, regardless of how it affects real or innocent people, is just an ego trip for people who think they can do no wrong. We on the other hand are defending our basic rights as individuals who choose not to wear helmets whether it's biking, skateboarding, or rollerblading, cos we see no harm in exercise. We see bad drivers as the risk. Drunk drivers much more so. Alcohol is killing real innocent people, but you're defending that as "ok" just for the sake of your own personal ego.
At 4/27/11 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well our society has made the choice as a people, not person to person, that alcohol and tobacco are OK risks. Our society has not made that same distinction with any other drug. Until it does, the state has an interest in protecting those people from themselves.
You are clearly just trying to wind us up. Tobacco packets with "SMOKING KILLS". People drinking themselves to death. It's only because ALL SAFER DRUGS ARE KEPT ILLEGAL, like we really have any option??
At 4/26/11 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy, completely independent of the people's interest.
Ahh. So fining someone for not wearing a helmet on a bike is to protect them from bad drivers, thus keeping them safe and healthy. That makes a lot of sense. NOT!
Well guess what, i was 'caught' crossing the road opposite my flat on an empty street. I wasn't cycling on some highway. Do pedestrians have to wear helmets crossing the road? Of course they bloody don't! The cop then threatened me with a $300 fine for riding on the footpath, which i wasn't. No wonder other countries looked at our retarded cycle helmet laws and decided against it because people will just avoid cycling altogether (bye bye healthy exercise) cos that's exactly what happens! Then people end up afraid to leave their fucken house, and just dial-a-pizza instead.
"The state has an interest in keeping the population safe and healthy" ..what an absolute crock of shit!!
At 4/22/11 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: until you give people like me a reason to want to actively change the laws, we won't.
It's a losing battle. Someone somewhere in the world is right this very minute is busy working on splicing the genetics of whatever produces thc into other plant varieties, the likes of which can't so easily be eradicated. A common food variety like corn or wheat should do the job i think.
But hey, why go that far when synthetic drugs are much easier to make? The end goal is just to bankrupt the state which continues to perpetrate morally corrupt laws.
At 4/9/11 11:42 PM, JoS wrote: So, what are your thoughts on people taking these pills to help them do better?
No different to the many famous artists/authors who do drugs/alcohol to improve their creativity.
At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Just like for drinky drink and the kiddos. The legal limit for underage drunk driving is.000. Tht means drinking 1 beer versus a bath tub full of ethyl alcohol wouldn't make a wee bit of difference.
For me ^this^ comment says it all.
You are talking about teenagers. Kids old enough to drive. Kids not old enough to drink. You joke that drinking a "bathtub full of pure alcohol.. wouldn't make a difference". Saying that is so stupid it's not even funny. It makes me angry!
Clearly teenagers think they can drink like adults, because they're effectively saying "we're not kids!". Drinking heaps shows how tough and adult they are. Moreover, after a few mouthfuls, the alcohol takes over, and they keep on drinking until they run out or pass out. Basically teenagers don't realize that 1 single bottle of regular alcohol like vodka or rum or whiskey.. CAN KILL THEM DEAD!!! You know, bottles with beautiful happy people on the labels having the time of their lives at a wonderful party.
If one kid dies from drinking some cleaning liquid, it might even make the national news, then they respond by putting "POISON" and SKULLS on the label, and regulating that all cleaners have child proof lids.
However, nearly every week some kid dies drinking mom or dads bottle of cool looking alcohol, and it destroys whole families. Do they put so much as a warning on the label? Something telling kids "drink less than half a bottle and you're probably DEAD!". Do they?? NO, course they don't. Alcohol is immune from common sense on ALL levels, even labeling that it can KILL, which even tobacco is forced to do, with pictures of gross surgical procedures, and rotting flesh on the packets, even though smoking a WHOLE packet of tobacco WILL NOT KILL EVEN 1 CHILD, because they will most likely just vomit after 2 cigarettes.
THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL DOUBLE STANDARD!
KIDS ARE DYING FROM ALCOHOL AND WE'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.
At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Possession is possession.
Exactly,
Even if it's only useless stalk that couldn't even get a fly high.
Even if it's a strain that doesn't contain any THC.
Even if it's actually hemp, cos hemp looks like potent marijuana.
Under the alcohol prohibition days, did the cops didn't run around arresting everyone who made ginger beer?
