Freedom

[Slizor]

All Americans who think they are free, and that other people are not, I ask you this, Why are you not allowed to take drugs, is this not a freedom?

[Pecos]

At 7/3/02 08:39 AM, Slizor wrote: All Americans who think they are free, and that other people are not, I ask you this, Why are you not allowed to take drugs, is this not a freedom?

Good question..
Try reading The Apology by Plato. In short, it talks about different parts of a soul (human nature/spirit, if you will). There's an appetitive part which always wants things - it's the part that makes you want money, love, peace, happiness, etc. But you can't let that part of yourself rule yourself completely. It needs to be kept in check in order to achieve virtue. And that is what true freedom is. So freedom does not mean running around doing whatever you want, it's the ability to control ourselves that keeps our souls free. I really didn't do the story justice with this quick summary.

So think of laws as keeping our appetitive nature in check, thereby giving us freedom.

A second (and most popular) argument is that you're only free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bring harm to yourself or anyone else. And yes, yourself inclusive.. there's this idea of a state - a society, and we're part of it. As part of a social group, not only must you abide by its basic laws, but you yourself are basically property of that society. So bringing harm to yourself would mean bringing harm to the social group as a whole. Therefore, you're not allowed to cause harm to yourself - and this is why suicide is illegal.

So if drugs are declared harmful, they are illegal. Not that I agree with that argument, but you can see now where it comes from.

[Slizor]

It needs to be kept in check in order to achieve virtue.

What is meant by virtue?

A second (and most popular) argument is that you're only free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bring harm to yourself or anyone else. And yes, yourself inclusive.. there's this idea of a state - a society, and we're part of it. As part of a social group, not only must you abide by its basic laws, but you yourself are basically property of that society. So bringing harm to yourself would mean bringing harm to the social group as a whole. Therefore, you're not allowed to cause harm to yourself - and this is why suicide is illegal.

But this doesn't nessicerily(sp) mean freedom. It could easily be viewed that right-wing papers(ie The entire American press:D) are harmful, and therefore would be banned.

So if drugs are declared harmful, they are illegal. Not that I agree with that argument, but you can see now where it comes from.

Then, surely, in this society, guns would be banned?

[Commander-K25]

At 7/3/02 03:47 PM, Slizor wrote:

It needs to be kept in check in order to achieve virtue.

What is meant by virtue?

A second (and most popular) argument is that you're only free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bring harm to yourself or anyone else. And yes, yourself inclusive.. there's this idea of a state - a society, and we're part of it. As part of a social group, not only must you abide by its basic laws, but you yourself are basically property of that society. So bringing harm to yourself would mean bringing harm to the social group as a whole. Therefore, you're not allowed to cause harm to yourself - and this is why suicide is illegal.

But this doesn't nessicerily(sp) mean freedom. It could easily be viewed that right-wing papers(ie The entire American press:D) are harmful, and therefore would be banned.

Most of the American press is very leftist. And why are right wing views harmful. This is your opinion, exactly what you criticised me about.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. A balance must be found between ultra-individualism (dangerous) and totalitarianism (dangerous). I would have answered this question in my Misconceptions about Conservatism topic if it had posted. I'll try that part here:

Question: Isn't conservatism essentially nostalgia for a past that never was and can't be restored?

Conservatism involves recognition that moral community is required for the coherence of individual and social life, and that a reasonably coherent way of life is a practical necessity. Current trends toward radical egalitarianism, individualism and hedonism destroy the possibility of moral community. Conservatives are therefore confident that in some fashion existing trends will be reversed and in important respects the moral and social future will resemble the past more than the present. In particular, the future will see less emphasis on individual autonomy and more on moral tradition and essentialist ties.

The timing and form of the necessary reversal is of course uncertain. It plainly can't be achieved through administrative techniques, the method most readily accepted as serious and realistic today, so conservatives' main political proposal is that aspects of the modern state that oppose the reversal be trimmed or abandoned. Those who consider modern trends beneficial and irreversible therefore accuse conservatives of simple obstructionism. In contrast, those who believe that current trends lead to catastrophe and that a reversal must take place expect that if conservatives aren't successful now their goals will be achieved in the future, but very likely with more conflict and destruction along the way.

Question: What's all this stuff about community and tradition? The groups that matter these days are groups like yuppies, gays, and senior citizens that people join as individuals based on interests and perspectives rather than tradition.

Can this be true in the long run? When times are good people imagine that they can define themselves as they choose, but a society will not long exist if the only thing its members have in common is a commitment to self-definition. The necessity for something beyond that becomes clearest when the times require sacrifice. Membership in a group with an identity developed and inculcated through tradition becomes far more relevant then than career path, life-style option, or stage of life.

Conservatism is neither about the tyranny of big government nor the anarchy of ultra-individualism. It is about the strength of community and moral tradition.

So if drugs are declared harmful, they are illegal. Not that I agree with that argument, but you can see now where it comes from.

Then, surely, in this society, guns would be banned?

Guns aren't harmful, they're merely tools. By your reasoning scissors, knives, sharp sticks and other such instruments should be banned as well. It's the people that use them that are dangerous. A gun can just as well be used for good.

[FAT-MAN2k1]

At 7/3/02 08:39 AM, Slizor wrote: All Americans who think they are free, and that other people are not, I ask you this, Why are you not allowed to take drugs, is this not a freedom?

drugs are bad, if you do drugs, then you're bad

[FreedomSlave]

Guns aren't harmful, they're merely tools. By your reasoning scissors, knives, sharp sticks and other such instruments should be banned as well. It's the people that use them that are dangerous. A gun can just as well be used for good.

And drugs can do good things as well.

However in no way can a gun be used for good. The presence of a gun is a presence of danger, not of safety. Where there are guns there is a chance of death.

[Slizor]

Most of the American press is very leftist.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

And why are right wing views harmful. This is your opinion, exactly what you criticised me about.

Read it again, I never said it was harmful, I said it could be viewed that way.

Conservatism is neither about the tyranny of big government nor the anarchy of ultra-individualism. It is about the strength of community and moral tradition.

I got rid of the useless crap. I ask you this, who defines "morals"?

Guns aren't harmful, they're merely tools. By your reasoning scissors, knives, sharp sticks and other such instruments should be banned as well.

Weak. Knives have the ability to cut, you understand? They can cut things, this is useful. Guns have the ability to shoot. They can shoot things, other than shooting animals, which we don't really need to do(they call them tranquiliser guns, with the ability to tranquilise). Therefore, they serve no other purpose but to shoot other human beings.

It's the people that use them that are dangerous. A gun can just as well be used for good.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/4/02 09:21 AM, Slizor wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

Explain to me how they are more right-slanted. When have they ever cast a good image of conservatives? They may not be as left as you, but they're as leftist the Democrats.

I got rid of the useless crap. I ask you this, who defines "morals"?

Commonly held tradition. In democracy, the majority rules and in America, this means the traditional Christian concept of morality. This issue is coming up in the matter of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California stopping the Pledge of Allegiance. These atheists are the minority and they have no right to boss around the majority. If they don't like the words "under god", then they can just refuse to say them or cover their ears if it pains them so much.

Weak. Knives have the ability to cut, you understand? They can cut things, this is useful. Guns have the ability to shoot. They can shoot things, other than shooting animals, which we don't really need to do(they call them tranquiliser guns, with the ability to tranquilise). Therefore, they serve no other purpose but to shoot other human beings.

I don't contest that they're mostly for shooting other people, but this is something that we can't change. What are we to do? Ban guns? The only people that would be disarmed are those who wish to defend themselves. Most the crimes today are committed with illegally held weapons. Have tougher guns laws disarmed these criminals? No. If a criminal wants to find a gun, they will. Maybe while they have a gun to your head robbing you, then you should remind them that there are tougher gun laws and that they shouldn't have a gun just like you don't. See how much they care.

It's not a nice thing, but if 911 doesn't work, try .357

[Slizor]

Explain to me how they are more right-slanted. When have they ever cast a good image of conservatives? They may not be as left as you, but they're as leftist the Democrats.

The Democrats are not left. They are right/center(that is being kind). It goes by a simple theory on media, not by your generalisations. Now, follow the logic. The person/people who own/run a media company will be rich. Because they run it, they can decide what to show/ what not to show etc. Because they are rich(I know this is a generalisation, but one that holds quite true) they will be rightist. Therefore they slant the station/paper/etc to the right.

Commonly held tradition. In democracy, the majority rules and in America, this means the traditional Christian concept of morality. This issue is coming up in the matter of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California stopping the Pledge of Allegiance. These atheists are the minority and they have no right to boss around the majority. If they don't like the words "under god", then they can just refuse to say them or cover their ears if it pains them so much.

So then the world should be run by the mob? And what gives the Majority the right to oss around the minority?

Have tougher guns laws disarmed these criminals? No. If a criminal wants to find a gun, they will.

There's your problem, you say it as it will be as easy. It will get harder as more and more guns are seized.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/5/02 08:03 AM, Slizor wrote:
The Democrats are not left.

Have you even heard what they want? Nationalized healthcare, greater taxes for more social programs, more welfare and social security, less defense spending and increased government. This is leftist?

They are right/center(that is being kind). It goes by a simple theory on media, not by your generalisations. Now, follow the logic. The person/people who own/run a media company will be rich. Because they run it, they can decide what to show/ what not to show etc. Because they are rich(I know this is a generalisation, but one that holds quite true) they will be rightist. Therefore they slant the station/paper/etc to the right.

Standard leftist logic, based on abstract reasoning rather than observations. Have you actually seen or read some "mainstream" media? It's not as right as Marx, but it's certainly to the left.

Commonly held tradition. In democracy, the majority rules and in America, this means the traditional Christian concept of morality. This issue is coming up in the matter of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California stopping the Pledge of Allegiance. These atheists are the minority and they have no right to boss around the majority. If they don't like the words "under god", then they can just refuse to say them or cover their ears if it pains them so much.

So then the world should be run by the mob?

Define "mob." You're trying to add negative connotations to a majority run system.

And what gives the Majority the right to oss around the minority?

Because there are more of them. You can't please everybody, so you have to please as many as you can. This means the majority. If the government tried to satisfy and pander to every little special interest group, it would tear itself apart by trying to focus in many opposing directions.

The minority should have equal rights, but not control. Their voice should be heard, but not be focused upon more than the majority. The minority should temper the majosity, not become a favored elite.

Have tougher guns laws disarmed these criminals? No. If a criminal wants to find a gun, they will.

There's your problem, you say it as it will be as easy. It will get harder as more and more guns are seized.

And if there are no guns, then they will use knives and sticks and clubs. The only type of gun control I would support is a new technology capable of rendering guns obsolete, an "anti-gun" of sorts. If you've ever read Arthur C. Clarke & Michael P. Kube-McDowell's book, The Trigger, then you'll know what I'm talking about. Until we have a "Trigger" or an equivalent, then the only thing that can stand up to a gun is another gun. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

[Slizor]

It's not as right as Marx, but it's certainly to the left.

That's the thing. I have seen/read/etc the American media, my observations tell me it is rightist. I also have a logical eplaination why.

The minority should have equal rights, but not control. Their voice should be heard, but not be focused upon more than the majority. The minority should temper the majosity, not become a favored elite.

But what if the majority want to discriminate against minority groups? I would also like to dispute the fact that Christians, with the same moral stance, hold a proper majority.

There's your problem, you say it as it will be as easy. It will get harder as more and more guns are seized.

And if there are no guns, then they will use knives and sticks and clubs.

Which give better odds.

At 7/4/02 06:45 AM, Reaper-n wrote:

Guns aren't harmful, they're merely tools. By your reasoning scissors, knives, sharp sticks and other such instruments should be banned as well. It's the people that use them that are dangerous. A gun can just as well be used for good.

However in no way can a gun be used for good. The presence of a gun is a presence of danger, not of safety. Where there are guns there is a chance of death.

Guns dont kill people. People kill People. It's as simple as that. Not only that, but if guns are banned, Criminals will still get them off the black market. Look at England. After most guns were banned there, the murder rate didnt go down, as planned, but it acually stayed the same, and is on a steady rise. People there still get guns through the black market, or use knives, garrot wires, bats etc. to kill people.
There are many responsible people who own guns. I have owned guns or been in a house with guns since I was 13. I have never killed anyone, nor even pointed a gun at ayone. I use my guns for sport shooting and hunting, but, if someone attacked me, I would use a firearm to defend myself. In a situation where I might not have a chance otherwise, I could use a fire arm to save my life. In well over 60,000 cases last year, firearms were used for self-defense, In 93% of those cases, the gun only had to be shown to deter the criminal. 98% of All guns in America are used for non-criminal applications. While most use guns for hunting/sport shooting, Some people keep a pistol for self defense, Which is fine as well. Think of it this way. If someone broke into your house at night with a gun, Wouldn't you want to protect youself and your property? In most cases, merley plling a shotgun from under the bed or a pistol from the drawer will be enough to make the robber flee. Or say you were driving in a gang area and you got a flat tire. Wouldn't you want to get the hell out of there without getting shot? I gaurantee, if you pulled a gun on one of those "G"s he would shit his pants and run away. Gangsters are gangsters because they are cowards. If the odds aren't in their favor, They will usually run.

While guns can be used for criminal applications, the good greatly outweighs the bad.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/6/02 12:43 PM, Slizor wrote:

It's not as right as Marx, but it's certainly to the left.

That's the thing. I have seen/read/etc the American media, my observations tell me it is rightist. I also have a logical eplaination why.

You also ignore the vast leftist sentiment among journalism majors and on college campuses.

The minority should have equal rights, but not control. Their voice should be heard, but not be focused upon more than the majority. The minority should temper the majosity, not become a favored elite.

But what if the majority want to discriminate against minority groups?

That is why there are laws and people to enforce them.

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
-Declaration of Independence, 1776

I would also like to dispute the fact that Christians, with the same moral stance, hold a proper majority.

There are several billion Christians in the world. No majority?

[Slizor]

You also ignore the vast leftist sentiment among journalism majors and on college campuses.

It doesn't matter what Journalists think, they aren't the editors, they don't control what gets put in the paper. Also I don't accept that there is a "vast leftist sentiment", this attempts to make it seem like all the journalists who come out of "college" are leftist.

The minority should have equal rights, but not control. Their voice should be heard, but not be focused upon more than the majority. The minority should temper the majosity, not become a favored elite.

But what if the majority want to discriminate against minority groups?

That is why there are laws and people to enforce them.

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
-Declaration of Independence, 1776

What if the Majority wants these laws scrapped?

I would also like to dispute the fact that Christians, with the same moral stance, hold a proper majority.

There are several billion Christians in the world. No majority?

Firstly, can you show me where you got that statistic secondly, did you not read "same moral stance"?

[Commander-K25]

At 7/7/02 06:57 AM, Slizor wrote:
It doesn't matter what Journalists think, they aren't the editors, they don't control what gets put in the paper. Also I don't accept that there is a "vast leftist sentiment", this attempts to make it seem like all the journalists who come out of "college" are leftist.

You also falsely assume that those with money are necessarily on the political right. I don't think the Kennedy family is exactly "poor"...

The 200 election really brought out the worst of it. Some bias in the media documented here.

Also, have you heard of the incidents involving David Horowitz and other conservative speakers? They were repeatedly shouted down and attacked on college campuses across the nation. Liberal havens like Brown, Berkeley, etc. Horowitz ran a simple pamphlet entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reperations for Slavery are a Bad Idea." This political ad ran in several college newspapers across the nation and the outcry against him was tremendous. Students burned his papers and broke into campous offices to steal the papers before they could be distributed. They literally called it, "hate speech." IT gets scary when they start using Orwellian phrases. Just like something out of 1984. Read his "Hate Speech" here.

And look how they segment and divide people with their false "multi-culturalism"

A professor even offered a course about the "Politics of the Palestinian Resistance" with the warning that "conservatives should seek other choices."

What if the Majority wants these laws scrapped?

Then they will and it will become an oppressive society, if the want is bad enough. It is the government's duty to uphold the laws including equal basic rights.

The matter of the Pledge of Allegiance goes back to seperation of church and state, something that many falsely believe the Constitution guarantees. In fact, the Constitution guarantees nothing of the kind. It says that the state shall not establish a religion.

In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, has the government established it's own church? No.

Has it forced people to adhere to a certain religion or system of belief? No. If you don't believe in God, then the phrase 'under God' should mean nothing to you. If you're truly an unrepentant atheist, then just chuckle to yourself about this religion delusion as everyone recites it, or just not say it.

As Rush Limbaugh astutely pointed out the other day, 'What God?' They don't even specify a certain religion and God can have many personal connotations and meanings. We don't know what the Founding Father's meant. We can make an educated guess, but there is no implication that it is the Judeo-Christian God. They could have meant Allah, or Rama or Vishnu or Shiva or any mythological God.

Firstly, can you show me where you got that statistic secondly, did you not read "same moral stance"?

Approximately 1.943 billion Christians worldwide. There are other 1 billion Roman Catholics alone.
Second is Islam with 1.164 billion worldwide.
(Source: The World Almanac 2000)

And yes, I did read "same moral stance."

1 dominant religion
1 God
1 sacred book
1 set of commandments

[Slizor]

You also falsely assume that those with money are necessarily on the political right. I don't think the Kennedy family is exactly "poor"...

Kennedy was not on the left. Anyhow, since you always seem to believe that it is human nature to be self-serving, then, rich people must be on the right, which is, totally, self-serving.

The 200 election really brought out the worst of it. Some bias in the media documented here.

Isn't "FrontPageMag" where Horowitz writes?

What if the Majority wants these laws scrapped?

Then they will and it will become an oppressive society, if the want is bad enough

But what right do the Majority have to rule the Minority?

As Rush Limbaugh astutely pointed out the other day, 'What God?' They don't even specify a certain religion and God can have many personal connotations and meanings. We don't know what the Founding Father's meant. We can make an educated guess, but there is no implication that it is the Judeo-Christian God. They could have meant Allah, or Rama or Vishnu or Shiva or any mythological God.

They couldn't have meant Allah, for the simple reasonn that Allah is called Allah. They couldn't have mean Vishnu, Rama or Shiva(They're Hindu gods, right?) because they are called Vishnu, Rama or Shiva.

Firstly, can you show me where you got that statistic secondly, did you not read "same moral stance"?

Approximately 1.943 billion Christians worldwide. There are other 1 billion Roman Catholics alone.

One Third is not a proper majority.

And yes, I did read "same moral stance."

1 dominant religion
1 God
1 sacred book
1 set of commandments

Millions of stances on Abortion/Suicide/etc/etc.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/8/02 08:38 AM, Slizor wrote:

You also falsely assume that those with money are necessarily on the political right. I don't think the Kennedy family is exactly "poor"...

Kennedy was not on the left.

He was a democrat, you know...

Anyhow, since you always seem to believe that it is human nature to be self-serving, then, rich people must be on the right, which is, totally, self-serving.

You also assume the right to be self serving which it is not. Conservatism isn't about greed, it's just not about big government. It's not the governments responsibility to help people, it's their responsibility to run and defend a nation. People need to help other people directly. Personal responsibility is what it's about, rather than leaving everything up to Big Brother and then complaining when nothing gets done.

The 200 election really brought out the worst of it. Some bias in the media documented here.

Isn't "FrontPageMag" where Horowitz writes?

Yes, but facts are facts nonetheless. Those stories were barely even heard during the election, how Gore took campaign money from China, how he was investigated, etc. They certainly reported even lesser things on Bush, though. Thirty years ago he got a DWI! What a major political issue!

Then they will and it will become an oppressive society, if the want is bad enough

But what right do the Majority have to rule the Minority?

There are more of them. Whatever is good for the majority is good for the most amount of people. You can attend to everybody so you have to satisfy as many as you can.

As Rush Limbaugh astutely pointed out the other day, 'What God?' They don't even specify a certain religion and God can have many personal connotations and meanings. We don't know what the Founding Father's meant. We can make an educated guess, but there is no implication that it is the Judeo-Christian God. They could have meant Allah, or Rama or Vishnu or Shiva or any mythological God.

They couldn't have meant Allah, for the simple reasonn that Allah is called Allah. They couldn't have mean Vishnu, Rama or Shiva(They're Hindu gods, right?) because they are called Vishnu, Rama or Shiva.

Yes, but god is a very general term. Are these not considered "gods" in their respected religions? And BTW, Allah is just Arabic for God.

One Third is not a proper majority.

There are no other larger groups and originally, I was talking about the US only. I don't know why you've expanded the focus to the entire world.

Millions of stances on Abortion/Suicide/etc/etc.

So you claim. A source?

[Slizor]

Kennedy was not on the left.

He was a democrat, you know...

My point exactly.

You also assume the right to be self serving which it is not. Conservatism isn't about greed, it's just not about big government. It's not the governments responsibility to help people, it's their responsibility to run and defend a nation. People need to help other people directly. Personal responsibility is what it's about, rather than leaving everything up to Big Brother and then complaining when nothing gets done.

Whatever. It's not the point, Conservatism helps the rich. Easy as.

But what right do the Majority have to rule the Minority?

There are more of them. Whatever is good for the majority is good for the most amount of people. You can attend to everybody so you have to satisfy as many as you can.

I'll assume you meant "can't". And why can't you?

Yes, but god is a very general term. Are these not considered "gods" in their respected religions?

And BTW, Allah is just Arabic for God.

It's also assumed the form of his name, most(all the I have come across) muslims, who can't speak Arabic call him Allah.

I don't know why you've expanded the focus to the entire world.

Because that was what your statistics were about. If you were to have given me statistics on America then I would have responded to them.

Millions of stances on Abortion/Suicide/etc/etc.

So you claim. A source?

I need a source that says Christians have different moral stances? Here's one example. Mormons think it is ok to have two wives. Catholics don't.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/9/02 05:28 PM, Slizor wrote:

Kennedy was not on the left.

He was a democrat, you know...

My point exactly.

Mine too. He was a democrat, a member of a left wing party. How are the democrats right wing? Their very foundations are upon social programs and soft socialism.

Whatever. It's not the point, Conservatism helps the rich. Easy as.

Conservatism doesn't "help" anybody. It neither helps nor hurts but is a social system. And tell me how conservatism helps the rich.

I'll assume you meant "can't". And why can't you?

I did mean can't (where's that edit button!) You can't please everyone, because people aren't the same. That was one of the reasons socialism failed, it tried to treat people like identical factory made cogs to assembled into a social machine, or as mere numbers to be shuffled around on paper.

It's also assumed the form of his name, most(all the I have come across) muslims, who can't speak Arabic call him Allah.

Still, "God" is a very general term. Which God were they talking about when they wrote it? We don't know.

I need a source that says Christians have different moral stances? Here's one example. Mormons think it is ok to have two wives. Catholics don't.

You've picked one of the most far flung sects as an example. I'm not sure how "Christian" they are. Many of their ideas, (such as polygamy), are explicitly prohibited by the Bible and Christian tradition. They also believe that you can go on to become a God after you die if you've done enough good things. Consider also that this sect was founded by a convicted con man who miraculously "had a vision" and was handed a couple of golden plates, by an angel, containing an addition to the bible. Did he not keep these plates? Where are they?

[Slizor]

My point exactly.

Mine too. He was a democrat, a member of a left wing party. How are the democrats right wing?

They give grants to major companies, like MacDonalds etc. It's a null point anyhow. Kennedy may have been rich and left-wing, but that only goes against your idea of a greedy human nature. How did he get rich anyhow?

Whatever. It's not the point, Conservatism helps the rich. Easy as.

Conservatism doesn't "help" anybody. It neither helps nor hurts but is a social system. And tell me how conservatism helps the rich.

Conservativism cuts taxes, the people who pay the most taxes are the people who "earn" the most, the rich people.

I'll assume you meant "can't". And why can't you?

That was one of the reasons socialism failed, it tried to treat people like identical factory made cogs to assembled into a social machine,

"Socialism" does not mean objectivly equal/same. Either you are applying faulty absract logic, without proof, or the "Socialist leaders" were wrong.

I need a source that says Christians have different moral stances? Here's one example. Mormons think it is ok to have two wives. Catholics don't.

You've picked one of the most far flung sects as an example. I'm not sure how "Christian" they are. Many of their ideas, (such as polygamy), are explicitly prohibited by the Bible and Christian tradition. They also believe that you can go on to become a God after you die if you've done enough good things. Consider also that this sect was founded by a convicted con man who miraculously "had a vision" and was handed a couple of golden plates, by an angel, containing an addition to the bible. Did he not keep these plates? Where are they?

Irrelevant. What about Catholics and contraceptives?

[Nicarchus]

To prove that left wingers have most of the press... NPR

Socialism would never work... get over it.

Kennedy was a LEFT-WING! (hence the democrats...)

Gun control is a good idea, but not to the point of banning. People kill people. Had no one invented guns, we'd still use knifes... It's human nature.

Back to the main purpose of the thread...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are a young person who is out for shock value. You probably just have a need for radical moves. Taking things to the extreme for reasons of your own, if not to make your self know. Or, you do drugs. (WHICH ARE STILL ILLEGAL!)

I've seen a few people who are agreeing that drugs should be leagal, but guns are bad... "Guns increase danger..." (Im not quoting anyone from the thread, just an overall statment I hear alot..) but you want people to be intoxicated to the point they wouldn't be able to rationalize.? Is that what I'm getting? How does that make sense?

-- they should add an area where you can read over the posts while you post...--- (not to mention an edit button)---

[Slizor]

To prove that left wingers have most of the press... NPR

Wah?

Socialism would never work... get over it.

Any proof?(Idiot seem to have the same arguements it goes over and over I'm thinking of just making one reponse that you edit as applicable)

Kennedy was a LEFT-WING! (hence the democrats...)

Wow, you sure have amazing logic there!

It's human nature.

Prove human nature.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are a young person who is out for shock value. You probably just have a need for radical moves.

Then you'd be wrong. I have no need to be radical apart from a conscience, which can easily be snuffed out(see Conservatives).

You have actually failed to see the main point of the thread. I'm questioning whether Americans are free because they are not allowed to take drugs. please don't try and psychoanalyze me.

[Pecos]

At 7/3/02 03:47 PM, Slizor wrote:

It needs to be kept in check in order to achieve virtue.

What is meant by virtue?

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virtue

A second (and most popular) argument is that you're only free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bring harm to yourself or anyone else. And yes, yourself inclusive.. there's this idea of a state - a society, and we're part of it. As part of a social group, not only must you abide by its basic laws, but you yourself are basically property of that society. So bringing harm to yourself would mean bringing harm to the social group as a whole. Therefore, you're not allowed to cause harm to yourself - and this is why suicide is illegal.

But this doesn't nessicerily(sp) mean freedom. It could easily be viewed that right-wing papers(ie The entire American press:D) are harmful, and therefore would be banned.

If the majority decided that the degree of harm from American press is too great, then yes.. it would be banned. But try not to be so silly in these conversations.

So if drugs are declared harmful, they are illegal. Not that I agree with that argument, but you can see now where it comes from.

Then, surely, in this society, guns would be banned?

Same thing goes for guns... if the majority concluded that guns are harmful, they'd be outlawed. But they're not, it's people who misuse guns. And 'the right to bare arms' is everyone's right to defend themselves.

[Nicarchus]

At 7/12/02 08:24 AM, Slizor wrote:

To prove that left wingers have most of the press... NPR

Wah?

NPR... National Public Radio.. (which is paid for by you) has more radio locations then any other political show on the airwaves. It's a publicly funded program, which just throws out left wing views. !!! The Left-wing has a publicly funded program, pumping out their views 24/7. The right... well... we only have Rush... :P

Socialism would never work... get over it.

Any proof?(Idiot seem to have the same arguements it goes over and over I'm thinking of just making one reponse that you edit as applicable)

LoL, thats politics, arguing when you can't win. Go watch enemy at the Gates, right before the end, they explain why human nature, (what humans tend to do repeatdly), will prevent Communism/Socalism from working. (Greed... simple.)

Kennedy was a LEFT-WING! (hence the democrats...)

Wow, you sure have amazing logic there!

-I like your sarcasim... Who was it that said the Kennedy wasn't left..!? (not saying it was you...)

It's human nature.

Prove human nature.

?? Human nature is what humans have a tendency to do... Patterns they follow. Things that define them; common characteristics between them all. I.E.>> Greed... It's human nature to be greedy, always wanting more. To better your sitiuation.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are a young person who is out for shock value. You probably just have a need for radical moves.

Then you'd be wrong. I have no need to be radical apart from a conscience, which can easily be snuffed out(see Conservatives).

You may have a conscience, but it goes against American Free business and the values of the country... (when it was founded... (the same ones we are supose to follow now cause its the same constitiution)

You have actually failed to see the main point of the thread. I'm questioning whether Americans are free because they are not allowed to take drugs. please don't try and psychoanalyze me.

You missed something... I thought I stated that drugs were a danger to society? Are they not? Then why have them in society? Unless you can moderate drug use... (which we can't dd now..)

Those freedoms, shouldn't be called that. People put only see the constitution.. and Turth be told... They can take it away very easy. These are privligaes. Judge Freedom by not what you're allowed to do.. But what you aren't. You're worried about being able to smoke drugs! When others aren't allowed to walk across the street. This is a problem..

[wdfcverfgtghm]

NPR... National Public Radio.. (which is paid for by you) has more radio locations then any other political show on the airwaves. It's a publicly funded program, which just throws out left wing views. !!! The Left-wing has a publicly funded program, pumping out their views 24/7. The right... well... we only have Rush... :P

NPR is American and alot of people who you are talking to arn't american. Anyway, Most talk radio is concervative. There are at least 25 nation wide talk radio shows that I can think of that are concervative. NPR is the only liberal radio that I know of.

LoL, thats politics, arguing when you can't win. Go watch enemy at the Gates, right before the end, they explain why human nature, (what humans tend to do repeatdly), will prevent Communism/Socalism from working. (Greed... simple.)

If you're honestly trying to discredit an entire philosophy with a 30 second clip from an action war movie, then I don't think you're going to get very far.

It's human nature.

Prove human nature.

?? Human nature is what humans have a tendency to do... Patterns they follow. Things that define them; common characteristics between them all. I.E.>> Greed... It's human nature to be greedy, always wanting more. To better your sitiuation.

Greed could be an enviromental varient, and therefore it would be presumptious to say that it is human nature.

You may have a conscience, but it goes against American Free business and the values of the country... (when it was founded... (the same ones we are supose to follow now cause its the same constitiution)

You have actually failed to see the main point of the thread. I'm questioning whether Americans are free because they are not allowed to take drugs. please don't try and psychoanalyze me.

You missed something... I thought I stated that drugs were a danger to society? Are they not? Then why have them in society? Unless you can moderate drug use... (which we can't dd now..)

Cars are a danger to society. Auto acidents kill more people then drug use. Everything is a potential danger to society. Saying that something has a negitive effect, does not justify striping rights from citizens.

[Slizor]

NPR... National Public Radio.. (which is paid for by you) has more radio locations then any other political show on the airwaves. It's a publicly funded program, which just throws out left wing views. !!! The Left-wing has a publicly funded program, pumping out their views 24/7. The right... well... we only have Rush... :P

And the papers, the TV, etc,etc.

Prove human nature.

?? Human nature is what humans have a tendency to do... Patterns they follow. Things that define them; common characteristics between them all. I.E.>> Greed... It's human nature to be greedy, always wanting more. To better your sitiuation.

To clarify, are you saying that there is an innate human nature we all have with us from birth?

You may have a conscience, but it goes against American Free business and the values of the country... (when it was founded... (the same ones we are supose to follow now cause its the same constitiution)

And I care about American Free buisness....why?

You have actually failed to see the main point of the thread. I'm questioning whether Americans are free because they are not allowed to take drugs. please don't try and psychoanalyze me.

You missed something... I thought I stated that drugs were a danger to society?

It is irrelevant whether they are a danger or not, freedom can be dangerous.

Those freedoms, shouldn't be called that. People put only see the constitution.. and Turth be told... They can take it away very easy. These are privligaes. Judge Freedom by not what you're allowed to do.. But what you aren't. You're worried about being able to smoke drugs! When others aren't allowed to walk across the street. This is a problem..

Despite your poor sentance construction, I will respond. Freedom is not a privalige. It is a right. This seems to be reflected in the reasoning behind the American foriegn policy(well the reason to invade). Anyway, this is a hypothetical question and you're still missing the point. How can you be free when you are not free to "abuse" your body?

[dagger-happy]

Commander...

Your argument that there are 1.9 billion Christians, thereby creating majority support for one morality, is flawed, for the simple fact that it is a culture that people are born into. I would be a number on that list because I was Christened and all that crap, yet I am an atheist. The Church of England really is in it's death throes right now, with under 2 million Britons actually going to church, if that, out of over 60 million. Many people go through the traditions of the church like Christenings and church weddings because it is the cultural norm, but their views and personal morality is often antagonistic to Christian doctrine (abortion, for example). There may be 1.9 million people who are culturally Christian, but this does not give them an ethical unity. Slizor is also correct: the Christian church is extremely schismatic with literally thousands of opposing sects. You said the example of the mormons was far-fetched, but there are a great deal of them in the USA, and they are all part of the "1.9 billion Christians".

It is ridiculous allowing people to own guns but not own "drugs", a typical blanket term that see all kinds of illegal substance as the same diabolical thing. Drugs like marijuana are totally natural (WHY GOD, WHY DID YOU CURSE US WITH THIS POISON???), but guns are machines created by man to kill. They have no other reason for existing. Gun ownership offers no security of the citizen (an essential factor in the fundamental freedoms set down in the "Rights of Man"), because the criminals will just arm themselves too. It makes life cheap, as the laws and constraints of the police force are nullified by vigilantes and survival of the fittest. Is this really civilised?

As for drugs, there are no decent arguments for prohibition, apart from them (sometimes) being bad for your health - eating too much meat is bad for your health, but the government hasn't outlawed meat, because it recognises that we're not children and we can make our own decions.

Your claim that we don't know what God they were talking about when they added "under God" to the pledge is incorrect. It was added as a nod to the paranoid McCarthyism of the fifties. In saying the pledge of alligance, Americans are forced to endorse Christianity. However, you are right about majority rule, so if it is what most people want then it should be kept; but the minority should not be forced to conform.

[Nicarchus]

And the papers, the TV, etc,etc.

NPR also has more stations in which its is laucnhed from. Therefore they have a great reach. What Papers are from the right, and which T.V. Shows?

To clarify, are you saying that there is an innate human nature we all have with us from birth?

Im sure you know what I mean.

And I care about American Free buisness....why?

Without free enterprise... theres no economy... no economy.. you dont have money. No money.. you can't bye your drugs! Free Buisness is the reason you have a computer to post here with.

Despite your poor sentance construction, I will respond. Freedom is not a privalige. It is a right. This seems to be reflected in the reasoning behind the American foriegn policy(well the reason to invade). Anyway, this is a hypothetical question and you're still missing the point. How can you be free when you are not free to "abuse" your body?

What does my typing have to do with my point? Your petty slanders will only lead others to dislike you. What you seem to miss is that Americans have the highest level of "Freedoms" in the world. Yet, people like you are worried about smoking drugs? Your Freedoms can be taken away. I don't see an admendment that says the Bill of rights is written in Stone. I don't see that it says they have to give you those rights. If the goverenment so desres... I don't really see how you can stop them.

The government also deems it important to protect the lives of it's people. Drugs are only USED for bad, and dangerous things. So as I see it, the government is protecting you.

---

At the other guys post..

I only refered to the movie for sake of time.. It says the same thing and saves me typing.

[Slizor]

And the papers, the TV, etc,etc.

NPR also has more stations in which its is laucnhed from. Therefore they have a great reach. What Papers are from the right, and which T.V. Shows?

How about the whole of Fox?

To clarify, are you saying that there is an innate human nature we all have with us from birth?

Im sure you know what I mean.

Are you saying that it is an innate human nature?

And I care about American Free buisness....why?

Without free enterprise... theres no economy...

Do you know what a "State controlled economy" is? hint: It's the opposite of Free enterprise.

What does my typing have to do with my point? Your petty slanders will only lead others to dislike you.

It has a point. You fail to convey your ideas.

What you seem to miss is that Americans have the highest level of "Freedoms" in the world.

Unsupported, and irrelevant. How can you be a "free" nation if people are not allowed to abuse their own body?

I don't see an admendment that says the Bill of rights is written in Stone. I don't see that it says they have to give you those rights. If the goverenment so desres... I don't really see how you can stop them.

What's that thing....a revolution?

The government also deems it important to protect the lives of it's people. Drugs are only USED for bad, and dangerous things.

Ah, so getting high is bad and dangerous?

So as I see it, the government is protecting you.

Does it have a right to? No. It is my body, just cause they deem something as "bad", doesn't mean it is.

[Pecos]

At 7/26/02 03:23 PM, PsychxpsilxcybiN wrote: we are not free

that's right.. usually we're buy one, get one free!