825 Forum Posts by "Draconias"
At 1/17/06 08:45 AM, JMHX wrote: Question: Can an omnipotent being - for the purpose of this discussion the Abrahamic God - create an object such as a boulder that is so heavy he himself can't lift it?
The action of "lifting" requires several things, all of which are problems:
A. The God must have a physical form which is unable to lift the boulder. If the God has no physical form, the entire concept of "lifting" does not apply. If the God uses an inferior physical form, such as an Mouse, as the reference for "unliftable" then a simple change of physical form to a Human would make it liftable.
Also, remember, there is no definition for "perfect" in terms of a body, so every form is inferior to something else, and thus improvable within the situation.
B. Even assuming a single physical form for the God, "lifting" means nothing without some manner of orientation. For example, on Earth, since Gravity pulls everything toward the core of the planet, we have an "up" and a "down" for reference. A God has no restrictions against removing the entire concept of Gravity from existance, as well as any other form of orientation to judge whether or not something is being lifted,
C. Even assuming a single physical form and a defined, unchangeable orientation, to lift a boulder you must have something to lift it from. When you lift something, the more moveable of the two-- the surface or the object --will move. What is the difference, to a God, beween lifting an unmoveable boulder upward and pushing the entire Earth downward? No matter how you structure it, moving everything else is equivalent to moving the boulder.
Even with an unmoveable boulder and an unmoveable base surface, you can move and change the Universe to make the two things change relative position. A God can stretch space itself, move the Universe, and do anything else to lift the unliftable boulder by moving everything else.
D. You're assuming an "unliftable" boulder can exist. 1 + 1 will never = 7. Ever. No amount of power or alterations can make it true, just as no amount of power or alteration might make an unmoveable boulder. You can still be Omnipotent without being capable of the impossible. For things that no amount of power can achieve, Omnipotence does not apply.
An unmoveable boulder may be a case of something that no amount of power-- even Omnipotence --can not achieve. However, that doesn't mean that something can't be Omnipotent, it's just that power is a concept that doesn't even apply.
Any weakness is in the question itself, in the assumptions that an omnipotent being will have characteristics within the realm of humans. You assume the concepts of "lift" and "heavy" and "individual" have any meaning for a God, as well as a single physical state, or any at all, for that being. Assumptions make it look like a paradox exists where one does not.
According to military reports, Osama's last movements were tracked into the mountains along the border of Pakistan and Afhanistan. The military almost nailed him on the border of Pakistan, but a corrupt Pakistani general allowed him and hundreds of his followers to escape into Pakistan. He was almost killed again during a raid several months ago in Pakistan, but officially the US military is not allowed inside Pakistan.
His troops are still holed up in the mountain ranges along the border, mostly in the Pakistani side, and quite a few have moved to nearby towns, but Osama has not been spotted since a missile smacked right into a hideout he was using. His death was not confirmed in the blast, but he hasn't been seen or otherwise heard from since.
It is not known whether the primary part of his organization escaped through Pakistan, since much of the government and military of Pakistan is attempting to help the US, but the country itself is in a state of near-chaos and unable to provide unified assistance. Osama and his soldiers have been effectively eliminated, at least for the forseeable future.
At 1/16/06 11:04 AM, -poxpower- wrote: Just try to assassinate him when he's rolling around during a parade. Ha. 5 inches of titanium alloy will deflect any bullets >: o
A. Solothurn S-18/100 20mm Anti-Tank Cannon
Titanium is equivalent to Butter for Anti-Tank weapons.
B. Nuclear warhead
Even if it doesn't disintegrate the RoboPrez, it'll fry his circuits for sure.
I have a simple idea that wiould be amazingly useful for figuring out where the hell all our funding is going if nothing is improving:
The Public Schools should be forced to have open financial books, which anyone in the Public has permission to see. Forcing them to publish the financial information online would be even better.
That may be a harsh rule for the schools to follow, but it sure as hell would be useful when we see "Hey, 30 million went in, 25 million was spent, and 5 million just disappeared! Hey, didn't that Principal buy a BMW and a new house last month?"
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the political and economic state of the United States has decreased significantly in recent decades. But it hasn't.
There is no "disaster" in our country, and only a very poor unstanding would lead you to believe that anything has changed in how elections occur over the past 30 years. There is no problem, especially not the one you imagine exists.
By the way, is there some law stating that anyone who is an actor must be some sort of idiot? I've seen the same Arnold comments in many places, and there seems to be a bias against actors whenever they try to take "serious" jobs (i.e. anything besides being an actor, according to those people).
You need to re-examine some of your "issues" and find where you went astray in your understanding of the current political situation.
Any sort of "sample study" or statistic should always be taken with a very, very large grain of salt. Those types of studies often conform to the beliefs of the researchers and rarely give accurate information. More often than not, those tests simply show trends in single areas, like one city, and those trends do not reflect the entire nation accurately.
Remember: 346 divided by 65 million (approx. teenage population) is only 0.000006% of the Teenage population. There's no way in hell I'd trust a sample size that small for such an abstract subject.
My general rule is that if the sample size must be at least 1% of the total target population for a survey or statistic to hold any credibility. Anything less is smaller than the error margin for any reasonable approximation.
At 1/15/06 12:48 PM, Elfer wrote:At 1/15/06 12:21 PM, Draconias wrote: Gay Marriage is denied to everyone, so no group is being descriminated against.I'm sorry, I just find these two statements a bit fiddly here. Can you select one of these and stick with it? Either Gay Marriage is denied to everyone equally, or Gay Marriage favours a specific group. You can't have it both ways.
Adding Gay Marriage will favor a specific group, which is descrimination.
Umm. . . what are you talking about? One is present tense, the other is future tense, and both contribute to the same image.
If Gay Marriage was added, that would be discrimination through favoritism.
While Gay Marriage remains non-existant, the denial is universal and no descrimination exists.
Does that re-wording make more sense to you? By leaving Marriage untouched, no one is descriminated against. However, if you were to redefine Marriage to give Gay couples government benefits, that's favoritism, and thus descrimination. It would be descrimination due to the "Gay" part of "Gay Marriage."
Normal Marriage is open to everyone, but Gay Marriage would give benefits to people based on their sexual orientation and effectively deny heterosexuals the same benefits. That may be tough logic for you to wrap your head around, but that's the reality of the situation: unless you make a new form of "Marriage" that is completely independent of sexual orientation, you're descriminating, and thus breaking the law. The current Marriage is independent of sexual orientation and has no restrictions, implied or otherwise, on what type of people are allowed to be married.
At 1/15/06 08:03 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: Draconias, with your blessing I'd like to ignore your post, and give you some reasons why I feel homosexuality is morally not wrong. I think this is what you've been asking for.
Okay.
2. Freedoms - The blow to civil liberties is fairly great if you legistlate against a group of people just because of their sexual preference.
Remember, simply not legislating for a group is different from legislating against a group. The United States currently refuses to legislate Gay Marriage into existance; the US isn't legislating against Gays, it is simply refusing to give them free benefits.
3. If the state do not want to allow gay marriage (or 'civil partnerships') then they are guilty of discrimination.
I believe that is completely untrue. If a child comes up to me and demands candy "because the boy over there has some," and I refuse, does that mean I am discriminating? No. If I was selling candy and refused to deal with one particular child, that would be discriminating, but that's not the situation here.
Gay Marriage is not a basic right.
Nothing in our laws so far even suggest anyone is entitled to it.
Gay Marriage is denied to everyone, so no group is being descriminated against.
All the major religions, the founders of Marriage, refuse to accept Gay Marriage.
Adding Gay Marriage will favor a specific group, which is descrimination.
A "Civil Union" would break the idea that Same-Sex Marriage must be Homosexual Marriage.
4. Choice
There is no stigma for being gay in most regions of the United States. Also, being gay is something you don't need to reveal. Most of the stigma you may get for being gay is if you fit into the "gay guy" stereotype of a feminized man.
5. Majority - Although majority opinion and tradition are on your side, that does not mean they are correct. Firstly, the majority of people and tradition were pro-slavery.
Wrong. Only a minority of people supported Slavery. First of all, only a severe minority owned slaves, even in the South. Second, the South had much fewer people than the North, and most of the North was neutral or anti-slavery.
A Civil War is what happens when a Minority challenges the beliefs of the Majority. The Majority (North) forced the Minority to follow the Majority Belief.
So there is a good chance that, were a shift in legislation to happen, the majority would support gay marriage.
I was in no way, shape, or form "indoctrinated" with any beliefs about Homosexuality in my childhood. It was never mentioned.
However, what you're suggesting is that if we brainwash our kids into believing Gay Marriage is good, then. . . it might be legalized? I don't like the sound of that logic.
6. There are many heterosexual men who cannot have children - would you be in favour of legislation stopping them marrying?
Stop. You're doing it again: legislating to add something is massively different than legislating to take away something. The issue of sterile men is very complex, often unknown for many years, and completely different because they already can marry. Also, most sterility problems can be corrected using medical procedures, like artificial insemination.
If sterile people already could not marry, I would be reluctant to just give them the ability to without any further questions. They would need to show that certain issues, like not knowing for decades that you're even sterile, would make enforcement unfair and the entire concept untenable-- which it is.
7. Distaste is not a good reason to curtail freedoms.
Freedoms? We have absolutely not established that Marriage is a freedom or a right in this thread, and you can only curtail something which was already available.
Adding is different than taking.
Redefining something is different than allowing everyone to participate.
8. Natural - Homosexuality cannot be seen as natural. Nor can living in a house. To say 'homosexuality is unnatural' is to deny 6000 years of evolution.
Actually, living in a house is arguably natural. All organisms require Shelter to survive. Houses are Shelter. Therefore, living in a house (just like living in a Cave) is a natural thing.
I think a big part of this issue is the underlying assumptions we both make about the issue.
Gay Marriage isn't some aspect of marriage we're refusing to give out, it's a complete redefinition of marriage. Regardless of yoursexuality, you can marry; it's tied to your gender, not your orientation. That means that, to allow Gay Marriage, we must redefine the entire foundations of a multi-millenia tradition, and all simply because a small minority wants government benefits. That's not a good enough reason.
Also, by refusing to redefine marriage, we are not descriminating against anyone. Anyone can get married; it's not like we're saying "Oh, you're Black, you can't get married!" All we're saying is that Marriage should stay Marriage. That's not descrimination at all. The only thing you could possibly justify as something the government is withholding from gay couples is a union under law. Even then, it's still not a right that is being denied, or something that we must defile the very foundations of marriage to achieve.
What I believe would be better in every respect than Gay Marriage is, instead, Civil Unions. There are two key factors that make Civil Unions better: not connected to Homosexuality, not redefining marriage. If Gay Marriage was legislated, that would be descrimination; it's favoring one specific group over another. Heterosexuals would not be allowed (or effectively able) to have same-sex marriage in that situation, but Homosexuals would be allowed both normal and same-sex marriage. That's descrimination.
Civil Unions wouldn't have that restriction. They can be for any two people who want to make a legal Union between them; whether that be Siamese Twins, or two people planning to work and live together for many years (like Foresters), they could still Union. Also, the restrictions of "don't break it until you die" could be more lax. CU would be better.
At 1/14/06 11:34 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: Okey dokey. Because you have the majority on your side, that makes my arguments irrelevant? You sound like one of those people who would be against Women's Sufferage.
No, Toad. Since I have the Majority on my side, you must be active to change anything. That's the situation, and only your actions can change it. Why do you think "Equal Rights" people like Martin Luther King Jr. had to make persuasive arguments? Why do you think the Women's Sufferage people had to make persuasive arguments?
It's because, regardless of right or wrong, they wanted to change the Majority belief! That's your goal here, and simply saying "come to me" will achieve nothing. You must go to your opponents and defeat them.
My reasoning is that if something is not WRONG, then it must be RIGHT - or at least morally neutral.
That's the major flaw I mentioned before: simply because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right. If something is neutral, then there is no reason to change the status quo and deal with all the problems that may stir up. If something is wrong, then we should actively fight against it.
It is not until you conclusively prove that your topic is right that anything can or should change. I've been telling the same thing to the Marijuana people as well: you must prove something beneficial and good if you want change. Anything else is no grounds for social upheaval.
No one is supporting descrimination.
I didn't say anything about marriage. I was talking about the actual act of homosexual sex.
No one is supporting descrimination. However, that doesn't mean we should favor them, or give them stuff. Descrimination is always wrong, but descrimination has nothing to do with Gay Marriage, the primary issue with Homosexuality.
"Article 12 of the UN convention of Human rights.
First of all, UN. How often does the United States listen to them? They wanted the Kyoto Protocol; we refused. They banned Incendiary weapons; we refused. They voted against permitting our invasion of Iraq; we did it anyway. Since when do we ever allow the UN to define anything for us?
Second, while it doesn't say "a man and a woman," it also doesn't say "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman" or anything at all about the arrangement. The UN intentionally avoided dealing with gay marriage or polygamy.
Third, you do have the right to Marriage. However, marriage can be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and traditionally has been for millenia. People against gay marriage are asking for a more specific definition of marriage.
There's no reason to assume they're true. It used to be the norm to make sexist jokes in mixed company. Now you are not allowed to
"Truth" can't even apply to Social Rules. The two concepts belong to entirely different realms. Social Rules do change, but that's because someone argued that they should be changed. Sitting back and only taking attacks does not change anything.
Two men in Love semi-breaks this, and anal sex thoroughly breaks it. The Social Rules apply in public and private.Why in private?
Gay couples (male), by definition, have anal sex. It is an act done in private, which usually isn't judged, but the two concepts of "gay (male) couple" and "anal sex" are inextricably linked. Therefore, any show of affection in public is connected to anal sex, and people know something disgusting happens between the two, even if it is in private. That's why being gay is okay with most people, but public affection between two gay males is offensive to many people.
Again, why? In today's computer age, we are unlikely to have to slay a wolly mammoth for food. There is no reason why all men have to be manly men nowadays.
Men want to be Men. We are raised to be men. Everything that is our identity and our purpose, our worth and our goals, the social expectations that shape us and guide us all tell us to be Men. When you try to attack and change that, you severely threaten the well-being and mental peace of at least 2 billion Men, and you deal with some very critical, messy, and dangerous social issues.
Most Men know we don't want to screw around with something so old and deeply rooted in the mind of every one of us. Most just can't deal with that kind of issue.
Second, you analogy is invalid for a very simple reason: driving a car isn't meant or expected to produce children. Marriage absolutely is meant and expected to produce children.Well, now you're talking about gay marriage. Homosexuality is not meant to produce children. Neither are stable non-married hetrosexual relationships.
Which is why Homosexual couples are fine, Homosexuality is fine, and all is well and good... until you try to lobby for Gay Marriage. The issues of Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are inextricably linked right now. No one challenges the right to be Homosexual; the entire issue is whether you not you should be able to have a Homosexual Marriage.
If you haven't realized it, Homosexuality isn't an issue. The entire issue, the only one that can be argued, is whether Homosexuality should have the right to extend its reach to the deepest, most "holy" parts of our society.
No, I do not mean "holy" in a religious sense.
It's not a false analogy. Its a perfectly reasonable anaology. Your argument is that external factors mean that my argument is irrelevant. This is a logical fallacy, since the "benefit to society" would happen regardless of popular opinion.
No, the analogy is false because you already have one thing, and you are lobbying for the other. A correct analogy with a right to post on the BBS is if you were banned and you were arguing for your right to post.
Since you did something a majority of the board would find offensive (based on the rules), you aren't allowed to post. The same is true for Gay Marriage, the real issue at hand.
At 1/11/06 01:45 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I'm not going to deny I'm very biased on this issue. Put simply, I believe it is YOUR job to provide an argument AGAINST homosexuality, since I see no reason why homosexuality is wrong.
Let me lay this out, cleanly:
Your goal is to sway people.
The Majority is on my side of the argument. At this point, I have most of Society and all of the lawmakers supporting me. I have history, tradition, status quo, Religion, Law, and Emotion on my side. To maintain control of this country, I simply need to defend my population base.
You have only a Minority. You have only futile attempts thus far on your side. To "win" this debate on any level, you must convince my supporters to join your side. By necessity, if you want to become the Majority, you must be the one to make persuasive arguments. You need to reduce my population base.
That's all. Sitting on the Defense when you wish to spark change is ineffective. Sitting on the Defense when you want to prevent change is the natural order of Debate.
It is nearly impossible to disprove unimplemented, vague, almost gaseous ideas proposed by the Attacker. Why? Because you haven't actually physically fleshed them out enough for anyone to attack. When it is your intention to displace a solid, proven system that has been as solid as stone (irony) for generations, then you must weaken it before your weaker idea can take root.
The only way to do so is to Attack. Defending achieves nothing for your side.
My argument centers around the fact that homosexuality is a sexual 'choice' in a similar way to prefering oral sex to regular sex. Since it is stupid to discriminate on those grounds, it is stupid to discriminate against homosexuals. Happy?
Woah, woah, woah. Stop! You said something massively different than anyone has previously been addressing. Maintaining Marriage is in no way, shape, or form descriminating against Homosexuals. No one is supporting descrimination.
Whatever you may think, to me (the majority), you are not entitled to Marriage simply because you claim to love one another. Marriage is not something like a Basic Right or anything of the sort.
It is not something denied to someone based on unchangeable inherited factors; regardless of Homosexuality or not, a man and a woman can still get married. Gender is a very important, critical divide in Humanity, and Marriage plays a very important role for bridging that gap and uniting us more strongly across time and generations. It is not something you are entitled based on claimed Love.
Whatever you may think, those are the basic assumptions of the Majority. Do you wish to challenge any aspect of those? It is those assumptions you must work by if you wish to sit on the Defense, and those assumptions you must challenge if you wish to go on the Attack.
:: Why?
It breaks all rules of Social Conduct.Which rules of social conduct? If you are talking about Rousseau's Social Contract theory, you are incorrect - homosexuality is perfectly acceptable under this doctrine.
I was not. To put it bluntly, Anal Sex is considered generally disgusting and unsavory based on the mass opinion of the country. It is based on the widely-held opinion, but this is not Science; this is Rules of Conduct. Your analogy is entirely invalid.
Men don't wear Dresses in the US because it breaks the Social Rules of Conduct. In the same way, you don't go around naked, and you shouldn't have your underwear showing. Again, in the same way, farting and belching during Formal Events is considered rude and inappropriate, and having sex in Public is considered disgusting.
There is no "truth" to these things, these are just the Social Rules!
Two men in Love semi-breaks this, and anal sex thoroughly breaks it. The Social Rules apply in public and private.
It is assosciated with a severely negative, damaging culture and tendencies.Source? Generally speaking, homosexuals are no different than straight people, so it has its fair share of madmen.
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
Look around, the negative, damaging culture I am talking about is the feminizing of the masculine character. It may be a media-only culture, but it is significant, dangerous, and thoroughly unwelcome to Men.
It is disgusting, an act of Sodomy.Again, this is personal opinion.
In the state I live in, Anal Sex is legally defined as an act of Sodomy and outlawed due to its "digusting" nature, along with Bestiality and other "disgusting" acts. I am quoting the Law, and Majority opinion.
Remember, when I speak opinions here, I am attempting to represent the entire Majority.
It doesn't produce children, and never will.Agreed. Why is this wrong? Driving a car will never produce children.
First, besides being entirely invalid, your analogy is wrong. Driving a car can produce children. Many people lose their virginity in the backseat of a car, and driving the car is inextricably linked from the events it triggers within certain context (driving out to a "make out" area).
Second, you analogy is invalid for a very simple reason: driving a car isn't meant or expected to produce children. Marriage absolutely is meant and expected to produce children.
It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.Gays pay taxes.
Marriage reduces the taxes paid significantly and adds to government processing. Welfare is a different issue.
It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.
Again, nor does me posting on the BBS. It isn't going to stop me.
False analogy. Again. You're not currently arguing for the "right" to post on the BBS forums, thus no benefit is necessary. One is in debate and currently in disfavor; the other is not even an issue.
I wish I had more room, but I don't. The available characters and time I have are very limited. While you may claim you have "debunked" my reasons, you can not disprove any statement with simply a two-line "It doesn't matter" You call these things debunked, but the argument hasn't even started. By allowing no back-and-forth, you dismiss it unfairly.
At 1/10/06 11:20 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: And that pretty much covers it. Any new arguments?
Yeah: It's your damn job to provide an argument, not sit there with a completely closed mind and a falsely impregnable defense and wait for others to provide arguments against it.
You ask something unreasonable and, put simply, stupid: you want other people to find arguments to fit your beliefs and your philosophies and your worldview and values, but those values are, from the start, completely biased towards supporting Gay Marriage. It's annoying when you sound like a retarded claiming you've disproved things you haven't even touched, simply because it doesn't fit your pefect little world view.
This is a waste of a topic if you're not even going to refute arguments, you simply throw them to the side because "that's just an opinion," as if beliefs and opinions can't control Society or make any impact whatsoever.
Homosexuality is disfavored.
Why?
It breaks all rules of Social Conduct.
It is assosciated with a severely negative, damaging culture and tendencies.
It is disgusting, an act of Sodomy.
It doesn't produce children, and never will.
It can never hold the "holiness" or virtue held by truly Married couples: (ex) aged grandparents with happy children after decades of Marriage.
It breaks the status quo, and there's no justification except "I want to!"
It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.
It serves no purpose except to promote long-term sex between Homosexuals.
It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.
Et cetera.
Your mind is so closed that's its not worth mentioning any arguments to you, you'll simply make up statements that no one else ever said (like Fli) to make your side sound true, when it isn't.
Oh yeah, Mackid, what proof is there that Homosexuality is genetically linked? There's been no "gay gene" discovered, to my knowledge (and I pay a lot of attention to current science). There's also nothing to even suggest that genetics has anything to do with it.
On top of that, past history argues the other direction: are you telling me that Ancient Athens just happened to have a huge number of genetically-predispositioned people, about 30%, way higher than any other area, when their culture obviously favored Homosexuality and it seems much more obvious that it would be learned, not inherited?
At 1/8/06 06:03 PM, fli wrote: Do you actually believe that the marriage that we now have has never changed or that the marriage we know today has always been like this? Do you believe that marriage has always been like this picture: Man meets Woman, they fall in love, and get married. Sometimes the get out of love and then divorce.
Stop trying to stick words in my mouth. I never said or implied anything of the sort, and you're simply trying to invent a flaw that never existed.
Marriage has changed, and I know it. And guess what: every time it has changed, the people who got it changed were required to provide a very strong argument for it, which perfectly supports what I actually said. If you are calling for change, the burden of proof lies on you in the same way the burden of proof always rests on the Prosecutor in a court. Don't try to fill in bullshit that doesn't exist to dodge the question.
You've provided no strong reasons, no strong perogative for this change: all I've seen is arguing the lack of a negative. "Well, you can't convince me it is evil and should be banned, so obviously it should immediately be legalized." It's a completely unacceptable, flawed method of argument and will never be successful.
To me, your argument is no different than the Potheads calling for the legalization of Marijuana: "See! It's not super evil, besides the known side effects, so it should be legalized immediately!" It completely ignores the rest of the argument, the important things like Society and Consequences, by simply arguing that the thing itself is not actively negative-- but that doesn't make it positive.
So deal with the real situation now: regardless of any of your "traditional" crap, the current state of Marriage is the status quo. If you want to change it, you need to provide incentive for change, otherwise it's like trying to push an Elephant with a Sneeze; it just won't work because you're entirely ineffective. So rather than demanding for the status quo to defend itself, the job of defense and promotion rests on you. Deal with it, that's reality.
Murder is generally defined as "Homocide."
It's the killing of another human, but not animals or anything non-human.
At 1/7/06 01:02 PM, Elfer wrote: Blah blah blah, the thing is, since we can neither predict nor use it to control people, this whole fucking thing means NOTHING when you think practically.
That's true, and that's pretty much why this thread needs to die. Determinism leads to flawed, defeatist, or destructive thinking, though, so assuming it is false (even though there is no observable difference) is the better choice. "Oh, this man murdered someone. Oh well, it was Destiny." We must act as if Free Will is true, regardless of its validity, simply to avoid dangers
At 1/7/06 07:48 PM, MarkyX wrote: We are overpopulated, not underpopulated. Gay marriage will also not increase the amount of gay people. It's not like there will be a GAY BOOM if Bill and Bob marry.
No, we are not overpopulated. That's a funny myth that doesn't have the least bit of truth in it. Overpopulated is somewhere around 50 billion people on Earth, according to recent estimates. We're at 6. The US itself can handle 500 million without much ecological strain. We're at 314. We have more than enough room, supplies, and technology. We're not overpopulated, whatever you want to think.
The US growth rate is less than 1%. Half of that is migration. I think birth rate is something that should matter to us. It should matter even more to other mature countries, where the birth rate has been wavering between positive and negative over the past couple decades.
Now, about the "gay boom" you mentioned: past history has shown that when homosexuality enters public culture, it increases in popularity. Example: Athens. Their culture had a major "the perfection of the male body" thing going. They had a homosexuality rate of 30+%. There is nothing that suggests that homosexuality is genetic; it's all nurture and no nature. If the US embraces homosexuality, an increase in prevalence is inevitable: disregarding "closet" gays, releasing pressure form anything will encourage growth. It's a simple rule of societal ideas.
What is always funny about certain topics, like this one, is that the people calling for change think they are the ones with the strong position which the other side must attack, but they're wrong. See, you're calling for a change, so you need to attack the idea that Marriage should remain how it is. Can you provide strong reasons why everyone except for the Gay couples should want to support this major change that goes against much of our religious and cultural values?
No, Lapis, you were trying to say that the nature of human thought and existance makes all their actions the result of some outside interplay, and the concept of "Individual" and "Free Will" do not exist because of the dynamic interplay of influencing elements in this Universe. Also, in addition to that, you stated that this lack of independence within humans made us equivalent to inanimate objects, and a Universe entirely inhabited by inanimate objects follows a predestined course determined at the initial formation of this Universe.
That is exactly what you said and are still saying. And it's wrong. I've spend too much time replying to this thread when you don't seem to understand basic concepts of reality: your imagined "Predestiny" can not exist because the logic that justifies it relies on information that cannot be obtained in any way, and it means nothing when you suppose things that are physically impossible to substantiate.
I could say "50 billion other Universes exist parallel to ours, and we are simply a one dimensional point compared to the greater Uber-Universe." Can you disprove it? No, because the observable signs within our Universe are identical, regardless of whether or not those others actually exist. The same is true for Predestiny: the present is still the present, and Predestiny can only mean something when viewing things in retrospect. It can never have meaning when viewing the present or even the future. That is the nature of Predestiny.
Free Will, however, is the simplest explanation to fit the observable Universe. Even if Predestiny is somehow true, you can never disprove an effective Free Will; the present is still the present and while you can claim that whatever occurs was presdestined, the actual choices are still made through Free Will, even if, in retrospect, they were predicted and predestined.
No matter how hard you try, you can't make Predestiny exist. The present is and always will be based on Free Will because nothing else is possible. You've said, over and over, things that mean nothing: so you suppose, if viewed in retrospect or outside of reality, that certain things can be predestined because asking the same Individual a question will get the same response, then you are fooling yourself. Your decisions cannot be predestined because that means the things that created you must be predestined, which means that everything leading up to those things was also predestined, etc. You justified your claim of Predestiny by assuming Predestiny first, then proving it. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.
Groups may move in predictable ways and follow predictable paths, but we've never observed anything in this Universe to even suggest that Individuals, where they be single electrons in a nuclear explosion or a single person in an entire planet, are at all predestined or following a truly predictable path. You can continue with this "I am a clairavoyant God, I can predict the future" crap, but it doesn't mean anything, disregarding that the God would know the future without predicting it. You can't be claravoyant, that information does not exist, and by the very nature of your demand for it, you assume Presdestiny because clairavoyance requires Predestiny to exist.
Your wrong because your starting assumptions were wrong. You started with the belief that Free Will does not exist, you started your logic at "Predestiny exists" and then proved to yourself that Predestiny does exist... using your assumption (from the start) that it does. It doesn't mean anything, period.
Free Will exists; There's no alternative.
Look, you're talking yourself in circles and up your ass.
It's a simple thing:
Environment does not determine Individual.
Perceived Experience determines Individual.
Nothing outside the Individual controls it; Free WIll exists.
The Individual makes decisions.
There is nothing more to know. Your entire chaos of an argument relies on a series of assumptions that influencing factors are pre-destined. They are not. Predictability, when viewed from a "God" status (clairavoyance), has no meaning whatsoever. Nothing is completely random, but that doesn't mean everything is "pre-destined" or in any way controlled by outside forces.
You seem so caught up on the fact that anything, even people, can be predicted. Existance is impossible without predictability. Our Universe runs on "rules." To exist, you must have some "rules." That's the nature of Existance: you must be predictable. That doesn't mean you are controlled, it just means that you follow governing guidelines in all your reactions. Predictability doesn't mean anything about anyone!
There's nothing here to argue over. Existance is existing; deciding is deciding; every is what it is. You're simply making up a problem where one does not exist by assuming Predestiny first, then proving Presdestiny exists within your example. Nothing is Predestined and nothing possibly can be Predestined according to the human status as Observer.
At 1/6/06 10:00 AM, lapis wrote: Free Will is an ambiguous term and I defined what I meant with it, and Free Will as the unpredictability of human behaviour does not exist.
free will
n.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
I see nothing ambiguous. Use the correct terminology or don't use it at all.
Also: Entirely predictable does not mean pre-destined.
Being able to perfectly predict the future does not mean you control the future. Prediction is not control.
When you say "The Universe follows the path that it follows because it does," it means nothing. Your entire justification for Predestiny is, essentially, taking the Universe, hitting the Fast Forward button, and then saying that path is pre-destined for the Universe. No, it's just what happened.
To predict something, you must use something besides itself. Your prediction of the Universe is pointless and flawed because you're using the Universe itself as the prediction method. You're not doing anything at all. Your "prediction" means nothing. All you show is that the Universe controls itself.
Humans are entirely predictable... if you use the Human itself to predict it. The Universe is entirely predictable... if you use the Universe itself to predict it. Everything is entirely predictable... if you use the thing itself to predict it. You don't have an argument, you're not stating anything, it's just an empty mess.
Humans have Free Will (the real one). Since they do, it means no outside force governs their actions and decisions. That means, by necessity, only the Individual can tell you what it will do. You seem to think that because the Individual controls itself, then it doesn't. Wrong. Individuals are only predictable by the Individual itself. There is nothing to argue here: Humans are only controlled, or predictable, by themselves. There is no "pre-destined" path because the only way to predict that path is to ask the very thing you're trying to predict: the Universe.
You should understand this by now: what part of "No external force controls the actions of anything or everything in our Universe" don't you understand? No external control means no true predictability and no Predestiny. Humans aren't predictable. The Universe isn't predictable. You can figure out parts that are predictable, but the only way to "see into the future" is to look to the very thing you're trying to predict and ask it.
Right, so clearly homosexual people are wiping us off the face of the planet, because there aren't any other means of reproduction. If you ignore a few options, of course.At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:
I said nothing of the sort. Homosexuality is only contributing to population shrinkage and does not involve reproduction. You have only tried to divert the argument, not refute my claim.
And of course we should be trying to raise the population, which leads to overcrowding and increased world hunger. Also, homosexuality in women doesn't mean they can't still produce babies, it just isn't done the traditional way.
I never said anything of the sort. I simply stated that we do not want the population to shrink. Even disregarding that, you would need to double the population in most mature countries to even approach levels of overcrowding or "world hunger." The United States has so much food it can grow so cheaply that the government must pay farmers not to grow food. 60% of the United States land is unihabited.
Artificial Procreation is a seperate topic, but it is possible for women. Also, if you've noticed, as many fail to do, the true Homosexuality argument revolves around men being gay, not women.
Basically what I'm hearing here is that you're saying reproduction is absolutely the only thing that matters for the human race, because you've given no indication to think otherwise.
I never said anything of the sort. Again, you attempt to stick words in my mouth to make an flaw where it does not exist. What I'm saying is that Homosexuality means no reproduction; no reproduction is a flaw. Homosexuality is equivalent to being sterile, and by the basic definitions of Life and Survival, that's bad. The thread starter asked for arguments why Homosexuality is bad or "wrong" and I provided Nature's point of view.
At 1/5/06 11:39 PM, fli wrote: It's pretty hard to believe that homosexuality is the only cause of population shrinkage. More plausible situations: birth control, abortion, families deciding to have less children per house hold...
Please read more carefully. I never once stated that Homosexuality caused the population shrinkage. I simply stated that the shrinkage is occurring and Homosexuality can only contribute to further shrinkage.
One quick example of population stagnation/shrinkage in Europe is Switzerland. The birth rate is exactly equal to the death rate at this point. Switzerland has been swinging into the negative zone repeatedly over the years.
And even then,
a population doesn't simply die off willingly. It's constantly maintaining at a capacity limited by environmental factors (food, space, standard of living, etc.) I hardly believe an entire population will not want to have children. Even gay people have this desire.
Regardless of whether or not they want children, "true" Homosexual people can not have them. The act of reproducing would then make them Bisexual.
Populations simply die off when people lose the will to procreate. The people simply don't care anymore and they all just die off. That's why migration is useful.
And here's another point.
Just because a person is gay doesn't mean that person doesn't reproduce. Gay people have straight sex many times (for their own reasons, of course.)
Then those "gay people" are, by definition, now Bisexual. They are not Homosexual if they engage in sex with both genders.
If every orgasm has the drive that's always saying, "Populate, populate... sex, sex... straight sex!" Extinction will become a problem.
So, biologically, homosexuality is a way for organisms to control a population to acceptable levels. Otherwise, we may become bunnies in a squre foot box. Homosexuality isn't a "genetic death", but a genetic program to protect humanity.
Wrong. The way Nature controls population is to kill people or to expand the environment. Humans chose to expand our environment when we became overpopulated. Most organisms just die.
Homosexuality can not be a "natural protection" for multiple reasons, the primary one being that Bisexuality and Heterosexuality are found in nature, but Homosexuality is not. Also, a Homosexual person is still consuming space and supplies, so they are still contributing to the supplies shortage for the duration of the situation. You're just fooling yourself with that argument.
Homosexuality is useless and of no benefit to Humanity or Society. It can only harm populations when birth rates are down and can do nothing useful or helpful. I'm not saying anything about the people, I'm simply talking about the sexual orientation. Homosexuality is unproductive, unreproductive, and simply unnatural.
At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong.
1. Homosexuality in a species requiring Heterosexuality to reproduce does not lead to reproduction. Lack of reproduction means lack of population growth. Lack of population growth against dying population means shrinking population. Shrinking population means extinction.
In all mature countries, the reproductive rate is very low. In Europe, many countries have a negative population growth already. Homosexuality, by definition, removes population from the reproductive arena. Homosexuality or an increase in Homosexuality within these nations can only lead to further population shrinkage.
2. (related) Homosexuality means non-reproductive sex. Sex without reproduction is simply an "entertainment" and a "wrong" action in terms of every survival instinct. It does not lead to reproduction, the sole goal of all living organisms, thus it can not be natural. Bisexuality is natural because it still allows for reproduction. Homosexuality is literally a genetic death, and thus unnatural by every standard of the word.
At 1/5/06 09:03 PM, lapis wrote: Right, amd the environment created the decision making part of your individual, but it's still not a very clear definition. Free Will implies that humans are able to break away from a 'destined' path set out for them by nature. If their actions are all perfectly predictable then there is no such thing as free will.
1. There is no "destined" path. Any concept of a "destined path" is infested with circular logic and completed unsupportable within an argument. For any action one person can propose happening, the other can simply say "but that was the destined path!" There is no response or logical consideration of that topic.
2. Your method of discussing Nature (the environment) here is flawed. You assume that Nature sets out a predestined path. For that to occur at all, Nature itself must follow a predestined path. Humans and Individuals are a massive, critical part of Nature. Thus you assume the non-existance of Free Will to even claim that Free Will is non-existant.
The nature of the interactions between Individuals and their environment is important, but your line of thought here is circular and useless. In my opinion, this same sort of "assuming the answer before the question" logic has been destroying your view of Free Will since the start.
Maybe they 'programmed' themselves in a way that the 'language' in which they were programmed is unreadable for the outside world.
The "programming" is the individual. It is inseperable from the Individual.
It doesn't matter however, since the programming lines are always the same given the same stimuli (stimulus 'touching hot water hurts' always results in the same memory, and memories define the prorgramming),
Okay, cut it off right here.
You assumed the same reaction, not the same stimuli.
"Hot water" is a stimulus. "Hurts" is a response. By defining the exact response of the Individual within the flawed "stimulus," you answer your question before it occurs.
Regardless, you're still wrong. Hot water is a relaxing Hot Tub, a calming Sauna, an envigorating Shower, a beacon of hope against Frost Burn, a wonderful spectacle in Hot Springs. "Hurts" is a dull pain of overstrained muscles relaxing in a Hot Tub, a shocking awakening of dulling senses in a potentially lethal situation (saving your life), a purifying wave for a religious mind.
You just can't ignore the innumerable internal responses the exact same stimulus can have.
Answer: Yes.False. The outside environment, over time, directly stated what the individual would decide in any situation.
You yourself agreed when I said: Development is the internal response of the Individual to external influences. The environment's influence is not direct and you ignore completely internal influences, like imaginings and fantasies.
The way this is stored in the brain and the thoughts behind it are irrelevant, the same stimulus produced the same programming and that's all we need for predictability
I already revealed the flaws in your "Hot water hurts" reponse-disguised-as-a-stimulus. However, it is important to note thoughts are, by their very nature, also memories. The thoughts attached and related to an event define the experience of a memory. You try to ignore them, but they are the memory-- the physical experience is nothing next to the accompanying thoughts/emotions/etc.
Being counterintuitive says nothing about unpredictability, which we need to imply free will. You still haven't shown why human decisions are completely random, meaning that the neural synapses that make up the memory are not enough to predict the decisions of the individual given a certain set of stimuli.
Humans do not need to be completely random to have Free Will. Random, by necessity, means free from all influence. Free Will only requires at least the tiniest bit of purely internal influence to exist.
You still don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I assume the actions of the individual to be predictable, given I know the memories and stimuli, and the models to know how they interact with the environment, I guess making up the 'individual' as you defined it. If we know the properites of your 'individual', we know his actions. Therefore he is predictable, and he has no free will.
Sadly, you don't even seem to understand what Free Will means. He may be predictable, but he isn't controlled. My earlier dicussions detailed absolute prediction: such a thing can only occur if something keeps the Individual inextricably bound to a certain course.
What you've said yourself, and I've said multiple times, is this: the Individual is the one who absolutely predicts the actions of the Individual. There is no other way to logically predict the Individual because the "programming" and the Individual are inseperable.
It's staring you in the face. Do you see it? Just think a bit about those two paragraphs.
Think, just a bit more.
If the only thing completely controlling the Individual and holding it to a course is the Individual itself... why, the Individual is controlling itself! What is Free Will? The Individual controlling itself. You controlling you, me controlling me. It doesn't matter one damn bit if you can tell someone what you will do, or I can tell someone what I will do, it's still you and me telling it, not some puppeteer force or being!
Okay, I'll repeat this very simply:
The Individual absolutely follows "programming"
This "programming" controls the Individual.
This "programming" is the Individual.
The Individual controls itself; Free Will exists.
This must penetrate!
You have the function Individual.
Individual(Stimulus) = Response.
Response = Equation of Individual.
Individual = Equation of Individual.
The function Individual is a function.
Free Will exists.
Predeterminism simply isn't possible. Under no circumstances, for anything, can Predeterminism (the non-existance of Free Will) exist. You need not even have a Will to have Free Will: an asteroid has Free Will, a star does, a rock does. Predeterminism can't exist. Ever. It's a logical impossibility under any circumstances.
There is one major flaw with this thread: you have attacked beliefs you do not hold without even articulating what you believe those beliefs to be.
You assume certain ideas or contradictions exist, like that Conservatives believe all men are evil but they are against Govt. regulation, but who said they do believe that? You didn't articulate any of the beliefs that would contradict that, and you only made a general, unacceptable "they all believe this" statement about evil. You need to actually say what you're attacking before you attack it.
I'm a Conservative, and here's what I believe:
Economy
Free Market
Prevent abuse and fraud, but do not meddle
Try to leave the government rates and taxes low enough to allow free trade
Military
We must be able to defend our country, beliefs, and ideals
We must be able to defend those who place their welfare in our hands
We must be able to destroy tyranny and threats outside of our borders
Don't give up, just win.
Religion
Religion should not seep into Education except as a "Religions of the World" class
You can not, and should not, ignore the strong roots of Christianity in the US
Things like "In God We Trust" do not violate seperation of Church & State.
Don't fuck with Christmas, or any of the holidays. It's not a damn "Holiday Tree."
Medicine
Put simply, this section of our government and industry is in the shitter.
Costs are increasing too quickly, too much free money is shoveled into Medicare, etc.
Any form of drug company advertising should be banned, as it influences prescription rates negatively.
Social Security, Welfare
Social Security is being abused in its current state. It was meant as a safety net, not a retirement fund for everyone, and it can't take the current strain.
Welfare is heavily abused; far too many people receive money for the wrong reasons for too many years. If you can work, you should work instead of sitting on Welfare.
The Individual
Every individual should be Responsible, Self-Improving, Ambitious, and Independent.
We should not encourage anything else. Irresponsible actions should not be rewarded. Self-destruction should be curbed and controlled in social relations (not by the government; it should be by your friends, family, etc).
And everyone should be expected to earn themselves a good life. That can mean anything depending on the individual, but a good life should not just be handed to someone because their grandparents 30 generations back on one side were slaves.
Humans should always seek to improve themselves. No one is beyond recovery.
Government
Small, efficient.
Low spending. (The recent administration has angered a great many Conservatives)
Low taxes.
Clean up the tax code: reduce it to no more than 2,000 pages.
Little meddling.
Primary Jobs: Science, Justice, Military, Aid, Infrastructure
Science and Military should be of primary importance.
Justice should focus on the important crimes: stop wasting time and money on drug addicts in Prison.
Long-term financial aid to foreign countries or individuals is bad: help them recover, don't just throw money at them.
As far as Infrastructure goes, the government should only be responsible for roads, piping (sewage/water), public works, and electricity.
Environment
You can't just reduce our influence on the environment to nothing. That's doesn't work. If you want to protect the environment, you must counteract our influence.
Companies should be limited to only the least damaging option, but if they create a counter-influence, then allow them to be more active. For example, a logging company can only cut so many trees per region per year, but if they actively increase the density of trees in the region, they can cut more.
Marriage
It's about Marriage and Children, not about Sex. "Homosexual" Marriage shouldn't even be considered simply because it is a debasement of a multi-millenia tradition and unjustified. "Just because" or "Cause they want to" are not reasons for massive changes. Pick an equivalent thing you want and allow it between any two persons living in the same residence for an extended period and sure, that's fine. But not Marriage, and not specifically for Gays. It has to be a non-sexual addition, not one specifically catering to a sexual orientation.
Misc.
Socialism is bad.
Rational thinking is good.
Government is for the people, not the other way around.
Corrupt and money waste need to be constantly excised from government.
Paperwork is bad. *cough*Taxes*cough*
Illegal immigration is bad: they're not carrying their weight in our society.
Random
The US should Annex both Canada and Mexico when we get the chance. Canada has awesome natural resources and Mexico is annoying as a neighbor. Annex Guatamala and Belize along with Mexico to reduce our southern border to less than one hundred miles. This will greatly increases our security, working population, resources, and global influence. And we'll finally be "America" when we're called it (or atleast North America). Don't even consider Cuba or Haitai for annexation. Especially Haitai, the official poorest country in the world.
So there are some Conservative beliefs. What do you think of those? Only the Annexation one is oddball; all the rest are very common Conservative beliefs in the large county where I live, so there's a good chance they're true "Conservative" beliefs. You must attack an articulated belief, not some vague "boogie man" you can skew and alter in any way you please.
Aww, Lapis, you ignored the important part of my post entirely.
Supposing humans do follow programming, that programming is the Individual. You can't seperate the two. If you take me: my mind, my thoughts, my brain, my existance, even if all of it is pre-programmed, it was programmed by me and it is me. Free Will does not exist when humans are programmed by a specific being outside of the Individual.
In truth, you haven't even looked at the real issue in this thread.
I'll write it out in a very simple, generic formula:
Assumption 1: Humans make actions and decisions based on data streams occurring within a physical object called a "brain" which has developed from their birth to enhance survivability.
Assumption 2: This "brain" stores information from past experiences and develops over time to improve its strength, effectiveness, and capacity
Assumption 3: This development creates the image of an "Individual," a being capable of communicating in complex forms and experiencing non-physical imaginations and predictions.
Question: Does this "Individual" have the capability of making decisions independently, outside of the direct control of another specific "Individual" or environment?
Answer: Yes.
Logic Chain:
Statement 1: The "Individual" develops over its lifetime independently and without direct control by any known outside Individual. It grows and alters itself in response to the outside environment, but not as a direct command of the outside environment.
Statement 2: The development of the "Individual" is a highly complex process that never responds in a single way to any specific stimuli. The development, while it may be directed and guided by outside known or unknown Individuals, is an effect of the completely internal processes of the physical body of the "Individual" and may only be hindered by outside forces.
Statement 3: Already-developed "Individuals" have shown completely counterintuitive decisions that completely counter all forms of basic, expected decision-making and development. Some have broken "rules" and "laws" set forth by the coordinated action of other Individuals, regardless of penalties. Some have violated "moral codes" that other Individuals attempted to instill within them during development. Some have shown "virtue" or "courage" even when that meant endangering or losing their existance and they stood to gain nothing.
Statement 4: Everything that makes up the "Individual" through its development guides its actions and decisions. Every experience, thought pattern, and physical change in the Individual during development is considered "part" of the Individual; the loss of any "part" of the Individual will diminish and strongly influence the further development of the Individual. The loss of physical attachments, which are known through repeated "recognition" thought patterns, as well as relations with other Individuals, can count as "part" of the Individual.
Statement 5: In order to know the exact actions of an Individual, you must have some method of predicting that action. The only truly accurate prediction must include all information influencing the Individual. However, any omission of information will diminish the Individual, thus every "part" must be included. With every "part" of the Individual together and combined, you have the Individual. Any method of absolutely predicting the Individual must contain the Individual, or influencing factors will be ignored.
So: If there is no outside force that completed controlled the development of the Individual, the development of the Individual is not predictable, and there is no method of predicting the Individual without the whole of the Individual included, then the Individual must act independently.
Other Individuals, born influences, and all other factors included do not control the future actions of the Individual; only the internal responses of the Individual to those things can determine future actions.
There is no other option: only the Individual can make the decisions for the Individual since the entirety of development and decision-making is done by the Individual, internally. Only the destruction of the Individual can be directly done by outside forces.
It's really a simple issue.
Evolution is taught in Science class. Duh.
Religion is taught in Philosophy/History class. Duh.
There's no question, there's no argument, there's just a political bruhaha that's ending soon.
At 1/4/06 01:23 AM, deathofself wrote: The right is there, but it's not like that matters. The people who want guns bad enough will get them illegally.
If you do a bit of research, it turns out that 80% of guns used for crimes are obtained or held illegally. So yeah, criminals don't like waiting periods and paperwork for their gun.
At 1/2/06 01:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Let's call it like it is. ID may be right, but even if it is right...it is not science. It should not be taught in a scientific classroom. But then again, neither should Darwinism/evolution, neither theory being even remotely scientific and being based on an almost religious faith in both cases. Neither of these are even theories, they are simply untested and unprovable hypothesis, and since we don't teach the never ending litany of unproven hypothesis in school, we shouldn't teach these either.
Here, for all to see, is a prime example of complete ignorance.
ID is untestable and tries to become valid not by proving itself, but disproving (unsuccessfully) the current theory so that it might "default" to a place of honor.
Evolution is one of the greatest examples of a Scientific Theory that you can find. It is a Theory, it has been tested and proven over and over again. It has support from so many areas of study: genetics, molecular biology, geographical biodiversity, archaelogy, anthropology, animal husbandry, geology, and many others. Evolution is, at this point, as proven and uncontestable as 2 + 2 = 4. Only extremely ignorant and wholely miseducated people argue against it occurring as a concept, and they nearly always argue against it in favor of Religion.
While there is huge debate and controversy over the exact details: what species split from which one at what location at what time, the concept itself has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution, as a concept, is essentially impregnable. You can challenge it, but you better have some damn good evidence or you'll just look like an ignorant fool. In two centuries, no one has found any countering evidence, so chances are you won't either because there is none.
I've never actually seen anyone so mis-educated on the topic before. How in the hell did you learn the topic so incorrectly? How could you even imagine there was Religion in Evolution? I mean, just look at it! There is no Religion anywhere near it!
At 1/1/06 02:33 PM, Elfer wrote: The calculations would have to finish before they were even begun.
Or a processing machine outside of our timeline or outside of time altogether. We don't quite know what the hell time even is, so the ability to abuse time is currently unknown.
There's always an exception...
I'll keep this short and simple (or rather, detailed and direct):
Marijuana has many negatives to go along with the positives, all of which have been recorded and are widely known. You can not deny effects like the "munchies" or induced vomiting in many individuals. Also, you can not deny that Marijuana is a narcotic: it induces a false sense of happiness, pleasure, and enjoyment.
No Narcotic is legal in the United States. By their very nature, they produce a deplorable, false sense of happiness. When someone is severely challenged with trouble in life, they should not be happy, otherwise what reason do they have for defeating those challenges? Narcotics have been frowned on as a long-term use activity for a century; other narcotics have literally destroyed empires. Completely independent of anything else, Marijuana itself is undesirable as a general-populous recreational activity. It's that simple.
The marginal "benefits" of Marijuana are highly dubious: a narcotic might be useful for those with lethal or insurmountable diseases, and the non-Marijuana section of the plant provides useful fibers. If not for the abusability of fields of the plant to produce Marijuana, the second benefit would be used, but as it stands both alternatives are currently unnecessary. Perhaps the second benefit could still be obtained through imports from countries like the Netherlands.
The incentive to legalize Marijauna is vague and uncertain. The government could get a large sum of tax money from the growth and sale of Marijuana. However, the very act of taxing it promotes the same illegal distribution that legalizing it seeks to remove. The benefits to society and the desire to have it used widely are nearly non-existant. The gain for anyone except for users is zero. The overall incentive to legalize it is miniscule.
There are some tangible, useful benefits to legalizing, but those same benefits can be obtained through other methods. For example, the Hemp previously mentioned can be imported without danger of Marijuana abuse. Also, the extremely harsh, unnecessary punishments for Marijuana use can be reduced and prisoners released without legalizing Marijuana.
A simple 50% reduction in Marijuana sentences to reflect the smaller danger of the drug would go a long way to reducing strain on the Justice system and freeing up large sums of money without legalizing the drug. In addition, since elderly inmates cost 3x more than youthful inmates, setting a maximum-age of imprisonment for Marijuana use and sale would save large sums of money, also without legalizing it. The same effort could be applied (maximum-age imprisonment) for many other crimes, excluding murder or organized crime, simply because the elderly are a disproportionately small part of the national crime and their imprisonment is expensive and probably unnecessary.
Again, the other "benefits" of Marijuana can be obtained through other methods. Medical drugs, possibly even derivatives of Hemp, can produce the same effects for patients. The actual drug is unnecessary for that purpose, and is actually more harmful than a pure derivative form.
Every "benefit" of legalizing Marijuana can be obtained more easily and with less chance of abuse using other methods. Independent of all other factors, simply as a recreational narcotic, Marijuana is undesirable. The incentive to legalize it is miniscule, and does not appear to be increasing significantly. The likelihood of legalizing it nationally is zero. With no incentive to legalize it, no necessary benefits for legalizing it, and no reason to want it used at all, Marijuana should simply stay illegal and save everyone a bunch of trouble.
P.S. Did you know, in certain sections of Utah, Marijuana is legal? You're allowed to smoke it in restricted areas essentially way the hell away from society. It's an interesting tactic to avoid the irksome marijuana smoking population in your cities and make your towns appear more wholesome and safer. Limited "zones" of legalization, like the Netherlands, would be much more beneficial than complete legalization because, by removing the users from the crowded cities, you reduce many of the dangers such as robbing smoked-out people, car accidents, and un-wanted exposure. Zone legalization is a viable alternative to complete legalization, and it actually has reasonable benefits and incentives that complete legalization does not provide.
