Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

allowing some drugs while banning others is not necessarily hypocrisy.

At 10/10/11 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't agree with this. We as a society still strongly believe drug use is wrong. Drug use is harmful, and not just to the person that uses it. If we were to abandon criminal penalties for usage of drugs, we essentially are abandoning the only part of our legal system that represents this concern and societal dislike of drugs, and our wish to be rid of them.

i disagree, it seems to me society has a number of different attitudes towards drugs (both the mind-altering and the medicinal [sometimes both are the same]), though i wouldn't disagree that a more universal feeling held by society is that excessive drug use is wrong. our laws already condone, or are moot with regards to, the use of a number of drugs for recreational purposes. the question isn't whether legislation should seek to end all drug use, full stop, but how best to deal with their use with the least effect on society. thus far it would appear that criminalization has had a number of negative effects, effects that outweigh the benefits of such an approach, which is why many fail to see why we should continue with such a policy.
i obviously can't say that everything is going to turn out rosy if we decriminalize drugs (or a few of them), but fearing that everyone is going to go get high and do nothing else seems a little fantastical.

At 10/10/11 09:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's a tough pill to swallow, and no amount of logical solutions will solve this moral dillema.

i can't say it won't have that effect, but behaviours and activities don't necessarily become acceptable simply because they have been legalized, i.e., suicide is legal but this hasn't had much bearing on our attitudes towards it (certainly its a little extreme, but as we are discussing subjects of self-harm i do think it has some relevance). hopefully a knowledge of potential effects will allow for sound judgements as opposed to equating legality with a recommendation of use.

unfortunately mankind is a little inconsistent when it comes to making good decisions
...mass drug orgies aren't particularly appealing to me either :s

At 10/10/11 10:10 AM, djack wrote: The larger community? The vast majority of the population of Utah is Mormon, and relatively few Mormons live in other parts of the country because they practice polygamy and very few states allow it (I don't know the marriage laws of every state so Utah may be the only one).

polygamy is illegal in Utah and banned by the modern LDS church (for now).

maybe a thread on polygamy would be fun.

i'm still having a great deal of trouble understanding what is wanted; sure greed is terrible, but how in god's name do you legislate against greed?

scratch that, simply define greed in a legally pertinent manner.

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: The religion is not shaped by its followers only the teachings.

Constantine.

and enough with being by the book, modern Christianity mocks the Bible as much as Mormonism.

why is everything so cold just south of me? not like i'm complaining; go Québec!

At 10/8/11 06:40 PM, Ericho wrote: I think the notion was that Mormonism could be considered a different religion because they have a different book than most Christians.

this may be a decent point for argument; is it the theological or textual differences that are importance in defining a movement or is it how they define themselves?
possibly relevant: Rastafarians considered Haile Selassie I as the second coming of Jesus (as God incarnate), yet they, nor most people, consider Rastafarianism as Christian.

though i may be wrong, or it may be because most Rastafari don't define it as a religion

while i still haven't been able to find an intelligible argument within any of your posts, you do bring up an important point relative to this discussion; what is well-being and how do we achieve it?
is it solely physilogical health; is keeping all your organs nice and shiny the most important pupose in life? is "profit" (i assume you mean pleasure gathered by various external means) paramount to our existence?

i honestly don't see how the first can be of sole importance without pleasure ("fulfillment" if you will), nor do i understand how the nature of pleasure is of importance (whether it is external or internal [i think the differentiation in itself is a crock]).

At 10/8/11 02:04 PM, adrshepard wrote: I agree. I only wanted to preempt the whole " 'cult' is a subjective term and therefore can never be meaningfully applied to anything" line of argument.

oh hey, it was already said.

i'm so original i'm still first for posting it second.

At 10/8/11 12:54 PM, djack wrote: I don't agree. Having a different religion is not the same as rejecting society, especially in societies like that of Rome which had numerous religious sects.

speaking of which; Roman, and other polytheistic religions, often had "cults" centered around a singular deity from their pantheons. the defintion of cult in this context is much different from the one being used to "define" cult in this thread.

omgz! more conundrum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 10/8/11 01:30 AM, djack wrote: If the fact that they were willing to go to war with the U.S. government isn't an indication that they have at least some cult type behavior then what exactly do you consider to be a cult?

a good Christian should put God and religion before the state, i don't see why war with a state over religious disagreements is out of the question for "true" Christians.

At 10/7/11 01:05 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: If for some weird reason, if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, how many of us would go out and do heroin? How many of us would do heroin because it became legal? Absolutely-freaking-nobody because we all know it's a dangerous drug and a very stupid thing to do.

i wonder if it would be reasonable to think some would stop doing some of the "softer" drugs if they were legal (or wouldn't have done them), if it wasn't an opportunity to "rebel."

At 10/7/11 12:19 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Better living through chemistry eh

damn straight; gotta make sure my glucose, thyroxine, antitrypsin and hydroxycholecalciferol doses are correct.

oops; "...or is it another..."
is is important.

At 10/7/11 12:07 PM, Proteas wrote: Gentlemen, it is at this point that I would like to remind you of something we used to say in the lounge.... don't feed the trolls.

speaking of which; has coca eradication been fair to those who use coca leaves culturally (not equivalent to cocaine), or another example of the ill-effects of the war on drugs?

it sure as hell means you can't get coca here.

At 10/7/11 10:10 AM, Elfer wrote: But see, I still have no idea what your point is. What advantages do you believe prohibition has over decriminalization?

i'm pretty sure its afuckingname; hes the only one who goes around ranting about glyshopates and how terrible we all are.

At 10/6/11 06:36 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: ...Like aerial spraying of glyphosate herbicide...

At 9/23/11 01:53 PM, afuckingname wrote: ...oozing arrogance while eating glysophate...

but it could be that my drug addled state prevents me from being critical.
woo, drugs (tha'ts an opinion, right?)

At 10/6/11 05:19 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: A Fox 5 news crew was caught in that mess and got on the receiving end of batons and mace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9-AypN9 vs

yes, push into the police barricades (and officers) and expect nothing to happen...

At 10/6/11 12:46 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/5/11 08:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

For the trollols?

is it possible that there is a heaven and hell and that trolls are proof that the internet is the living embodiment of the latter?

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: Christians please read:

well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

At 10/3/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Wow I really didn't realise just HOW stupid these gys are.

apparently they're coming to Canada even though we're more in line with their demands than the US.

get ready for a more polite lack of interest.

At 10/2/11 01:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, working in the Oregon Criminal system, rape applies to vaginal intercourse. The sodomy and unlawful penetration apply to the other things you speak of.

but that's only because Oregon itself belongs in this thread.

ba-dum-dum-tsh!

At 10/2/11 12:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Face it fellas. Rape is male female intercourse. There are numerous other laws such as sodomy and unlawful sexual penetration that cover other forced sexual acts.

sexual intercourse is defined as "Sexual interaction, usually involving genital and/or anal and/or oral penetration, between at least two organisms" and neither link differentiates between male and female victims, ergo i call shenanigans on your statement.

who needs any site other than NGs?

At 9/30/11 11:20 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Sure religion can make some people not do evil acts...

sorry, by holding themselves back i meant holding themselves back from progress as per the topic; i.e. science, human rights, etc...

i blame god directly for those shenanigans even though he doesn't exist :D

At 9/29/11 12:22 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Okay so they made a system that allows them to make shit up as they go, answering questions with no answers. Don't you see a huge problem with that?

you may have disagreed with me earlier on in the thread about my assuming god physically holds us back, but this is why. those who believe in god take his words, presence, etc... for granted, in essence making whether or not he truly exists a moot point because some will gladly hold themselves back (either limit their thoughts or actions) through the slightest possibility that it is part of god's will.

At 9/28/11 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I see this as a sign of weakness. Instead of galvanizing to fight a real problem, the Atheist community sits back and pokes and prods at these little things.

we shouldn't have helped Japan after the earthquake because we were still providing aid in Haiti.

... or, you know, we can do multiple things at once.

At 9/27/11 06:11 AM, MattDogg wrote: Do you still remember one of Osama's 9/11's motives?

fuck them; Osama would be condemning the West's actions in Libya even though they asked us to come help, if he could.

At 9/26/11 10:34 AM, Hybridization wrote: Examine each belief's texts for what they are; you will find that it is extremely difficult to develop a sound argument insinuating that Christianity is a religion of control.

Christian history in Europe and the Americas begs to differ.

and its not just the Vatican that was a control freak.

At 9/24/11 06:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I live in a student accomodation college whose population is approximately half (of ~550) American exchange students.

Theyr'e so fucking annoying, and so fucking LOUD.

maybe the fact that Americans have built in volume control is why so many foreigners think their cool.

i guess i shouldn't be surprised by Canada's ranking.