Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
We Need Moderators

By sausalito in Meta
Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:51:45 AM EST
Tags: kuro5hin, trolls, new features, pontificating nullos (all tags)
kuro5hin

So a second wave of diary section crapflooding  is hitting this site today. It's still the same script that attaches a random number to a fixed message.

Based on the dubious evidence offered by these fixed messages and other scattered clues, it appears that this time around the blame should not be laid on the cross-dressing cavalier we all know and hate, but rather on the recently-nulled, prosthetic-testicled assclown. He's joined the dark side, apparently.

Whatever, doesn't matter.

What matters is that this site needs - much like an terminal Alzheimer patient - at least one minder around the clock to keep it in decent shape.


It would be cool if there were like 50 admins spread in various timezones providing a 24/7 coverage. But, as someone pointed out, the admins are either too few or too busy with other stuff to be keeping a hawk eye on everything that goes on in here.

In addition, having so many admins is a security risk that rusty might not want to run.

A possible solution to this could be to create a new class of users with limited editing powers - e.g. they could just have the power to temporarely prevent up to five users from interacting with the site (voting/modding/posting rather that be able to null them or wipe their content).

They could be called "moderators" or something like that.

A simple graphical interface with a single "block user" checkbox next to the user info page would be enough (ten lines of Perl) and even the most computer-illiterate could use it.

But who should be a "moderator"? Basically everyone who's been here long enough with the same nick, is reasonably active and is known not to be a crapflooder and/or blatant troll... localroger, terryfunk, trhurler, dakini, redqueen, tetsuwan, cts...

Of course everytime some admin logs in, he/she can review the blocked users and decide for the nulling or unblocking. Just like modding, if this priviledge is abused (i.e. not used to stem a crapflooding attack) it could be revoked.

PS to the admins: I know it's a diary, feel free to move it to the ghetto as soon as it is in a decent state.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
So?
o Agree 48%
o Disagee 33%
o Wipo 18%

Votes: 27
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o someone pointed out
o Also by sausalito


Display: Sort:
We Need Moderators | 525 comments (515 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
we dont need no water (2.62 / 8) (#1)
by loteck on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:52:20 PM EST

let the motherfucker burn
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

you're a proven idiot, (none / 1) (#7)
by achievingfluidity on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:43:25 PM EST

fucktard.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

i have my fans (none / 0) (#14)
by loteck on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:18:10 AM EST

apparently i haven't gotten around to you yet
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
\o/ burn mother fucker, burn \o/ (3.00 / 2) (#18)
by tolomea on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:08:07 AM EST



[ Parent ]
you need more (none / 1) (#26)
by achievingfluidity on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:10:21 PM EST

your shit always gets voted down.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

really? (none / 0) (#46)
by loteck on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:57:37 PM EST

considering i haven't submitted anything to modsub since my Florida article, i think you must be mistaking me with someone else?

see maybe you are a fan and you just didnt know it.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

+1 just because I like Rancid (1.50 / 2) (#51)
by postDigital on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:45:24 AM EST



[ Parent ]
sounds good to me (3.00 / 4) (#2)
by Delirium on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:01:43 PM EST

Although really it would suffice to just have at least one k5 regular be an admin. As far as I can tell, none of the admins are more than occasional k5 readers/posters, unless I've missed someone. Aphrael used to be, but he hasn't been active lately.

I'll do it (1.76 / 13) (#3)
by Troll Hard on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:03:00 PM EST

I am on disability with time to spare to watch for these crapflooders.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
I think we should all chip in... (3.00 / 18) (#4)
by givemegmail111 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:09:43 PM EST

...and buy Rusty a pager. He could set it up so it goes off whenever someone files an abuse report. Then he can swoop in and save the day.

--
McDonalds: i'm lovin' it
Start your day tastefully with a Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddle, only at McDonalds.
Rusty fix my sig, dammit!
lol (2.40 / 5) (#5)
by INDUBITABLY on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:17:55 PM EST

it's kind of funny how tex and niws get the credit for everybody else's hard work.

BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND

if you want people who give a shit (1.83 / 6) (#6)
by lonelyhobo on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:25:30 PM EST

take it to husi

I've never really gotten what the big appeal with dos attacks are anyway.

I'm not sure scripted attacks like this can take care of scripting, so if this kind of thing continues we're just going to end up with a longer diary timer and a captcha.

hahaha just kidding guys i don't expect them to fix things

I wouldn't presume to tell the mods what to do... (1.50 / 2) (#8)
by givemegmail111 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:25:46 PM EST

but maybe turning off new user accounts for a little while would be in advantageous?

--
McDonalds: i'm lovin' it
Start your day tastefully with a Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddle, only at McDonalds.
Rusty fix my sig, dammit!
Cause you know (3.00 / 3) (#9)
by Josh Smith II on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:07:29 PM EST

that worked so well last time.

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.
[ Parent ]
When last time? (none / 1) (#10)
by givemegmail111 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:16:49 PM EST

I'm saying turn new accounts off until Rusty can get around to write code to prevent someone from posting more than, say, 4 diaries a day.

--
McDonalds: i'm lovin' it
Start your day tastefully with a Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddle, only at McDonalds.
Rusty fix my sig, dammit!
[ Parent ]
Oh, I see. (3.00 / 2) (#11)
by Josh Smith II on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:46:52 PM EST

I thought you were talking about when they turned off new accounts for a few months. It didn't really stop the trollery too much.

I think if they used some sort of IP masking affect to determine what someone's ip is sorta like what morons.org did, you'd see significantly less trolling as well here.

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.
[ Parent ]

blocking ip's? (none / 1) (#15)
by mumble on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:43:20 AM EST

If you are advocating blocking problem users by IP then that is only a partial solution. There is always TOR, although some sites get around that by blocking TOR completely. The other option is for a potential DoS kiddy to spend a week collecting a HUGE list of working proxies then script it all up and burn through the proxies discarding each one as it gets blocked. They will eventually run out of proxies but they could do quite a lot of damage in the process.

Another option is to go on the black market and hire a bot-net for a while. A small bot-net of say 50,000 computers could do quite a bit of damage!

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
[ Parent ]

k5 already blocks posting through tor (none / 1) (#36)
by horny smurf on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:45:05 PM EST

and a lot of common proxy sites.

[ Parent ]
decide whether (none / 1) (#37)
by blackbart on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:47:39 PM EST

you are working in band or out of band. Theres little scoop can do at the perl level to prevent masses of connections from crippling apache or the tcp stack from flat out too many connections but even the biggest sites can't survive too many connection attempts. Some attacks like the diary flooding one however are easily "in band" as far as scoop posting functions are concerned and would seem to be at least to me easy to defeat.


[ Parent ]
Not blocking IPs, (none / 1) (#43)
by Josh Smith II on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:32:48 PM EST

Morons.org created a graphical representation of your IP so you could be identified without giving away your IP. It'd probably require a bit more effort for K5, which makes it pretty unlikely, but it was a pretty neat idea at the time. This whole dupe army shit is kind of annoying.

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.
[ Parent ]
No moderators! (3.00 / 3) (#12)
by LilDebbie Lover on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:13:41 AM EST

Except, of course, LilDebbie and me.

Signature of Disutility:
* Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Emo Jedi Warrior Betrayal
* Betrayal of Aalya Secura
* Death of Spartan 117
* Enslavement of Man
* Humanity's Destruction
* Rise of the Horde

Also:
* "ALL I REQUIRE IS A PURPLE MARKER" ~LilDebbie
* "I'm straight but I like having sex with men" ~xC0000005
Why not allow anyone to a block/ignore anyone? (3.00 / 3) (#13)
by procrasti on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:08:38 AM EST

Anyone can block/ignore a user they don't like, and no stories, diaries or comments from that person will be visible, but only for the person who blocked them.

Maybe there could be a limit to the number of people someone can ignore, and if many people are ignoring one user that could be a reason to anonymise them?

Also, shouldn't two abuse reports have been enough to stop this guy posting diaries until the admins unlocked the account or something? Maybe this feature would be enough?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015

Another option (2.83 / 6) (#27)
by kitten on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:51:50 PM EST

When someone's pulling shit like this, block them from everyone's view except their own. Let them waste two hours madly haw-hawing at how clever they are while the rest of the world continues as though they don't exist.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
The problem with this is that we still have to (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by procrasti on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:09:32 PM EST

wait for an admin to step in and do something.

Its happening yet again, and I'd like to be able to stop it somehow. If I could ignore this user, then at least the diary section would appear fine for me.

Then again, I still don't understand why the abuse reports don't stop them. I thought that's what they were for.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

We could implement an 'ignore' option (2.83 / 6) (#29)
by uid 71137 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:45:29 PM EST

and even an 'ignore user's diary' option without going completely Web 2.0. It sort of goes against the grain of the whole collaborative media thing, though, but let's face it: collaborative media is dead anyway.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, ignoring would break the single common view (2.50 / 2) (#34)
by procrasti on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:28:57 PM EST

of the site model, but we already have that in some ways, such as hidden comments and if you set your view to nested/threaded, etc.

Still, I don't understand why two abuse reports shouldn't stop your ability to post diaries until an admin unlocked your account. This still seems like the best solution to me.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Seeing as this flood was started (2.50 / 2) (#40)
by uid 71137 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:22:24 PM EST

by the 'modbomb del griffith brigade', I guess that solution would have the support of at least some person and his sock puppets.

[ Parent ]
Rusty has explicitly rejected this (none / 1) (#160)
by localroger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:22:08 PM EST

His reasoning is that he doesn't want K5 to devolve into a set of separate cliques. Although it might seem silly at this point, I see how it would violate the whole purpose of the K5 experiment.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]
hypotheses need to be adjusted (none / 1) (#219)
by trane on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:20:48 PM EST

if the experiment provides data that don't support them. I've been calling for an ignore list for a while...

[ Parent ]
The fucker... (none / 1) (#17)
by mumble on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:45:23 AM EST

The fucker is back!!! :(

See the diary section.

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.

Here (3.00 / 4) (#23)
by Sir Digby Cream of Sum Yung Gai on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:00:51 AM EST

Have a tissue old chap.

It's been a rough couple of days hasn't it?

No, no, honestly, it's fine. We all have to let it out sometimes.

[ Parent ]

It would have to be someone universally liked (3.00 / 14) (#21)
by uid 71137 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 06:57:41 AM EST

Me.

I would rule with a velvet fist in an iron glove, unfair with the unjust and unpredictable with the regulars. Much like a hobbit bearing the Ring of Power to the flames of Mordor, I would be the one to trust with the tast, just because I would never lust for misuse of such, in my case, unprecedented power. The community would thrive, the air would be clean and flowers would grow, and I'd murder you in your sleep. What could possible go wrong?

and cts with mod privs? *shudder* $ (none / 1) (#22)
by procrasti on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:00:07 AM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
I know a man (1.25 / 4) (#24)
by Roy Batty on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:01:56 AM EST

His name is Deckard. He killed Pris and Leon.

GIVE ME LIFE FUCKER.


Make me a moderator. (2.66 / 3) (#25)
by Psycho Dave on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:12:16 AM EST

I'm awake at times when normal people should be asleep (or at least at the bar). I could have stopped this NIWS crap in the bud.

I'm finding the crapflood informative (3.00 / 4) (#30)
by blackbart on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:12:18 PM EST

ie., makes me consider what could be done to prevent it, it actually turns out to be pretty easy, if somebody posts too much of x in y timeframe, thats an easy trigger. I wonder what some of the other considerations could be?

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred

also don't forget (none / 1) (#31)
by blackbart on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:14:15 PM EST

try this on slashdot sometime and see how much you can disrupt their operations. Ie., none. Despite k5 having a better model for producing content, slashdot has essentially been rusty's daddy for years.

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred
[ Parent ]

slashdot (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by horny smurf on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:40:38 PM EST

you could try crapflooding slashdot journals. I don't know if they limit it (they may limit story submissions), but it doesn't really matter because slashdot journals are hidden away whereas on k5, they're the only reason I'm here.



[ Parent ]

You should take a look in Slashdot's spanking (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by uid 71137 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:32:34 PM EST

new 'firehose' feature, which is supposed to make /. into some kind of digg. It's 80% spam -- 100% if you count all the iPhone advertisements as spam as well (the edotirs don't). The problem with abusing Slashdot is that the only place you have open for abuse is each story, and those are so rapidly filled up with the mindless drivel of the fanboys and gadget freaks that you probably can't even drown it out with automated posting. Also, they have a time limit for posting comments, meaning your frequency will be too low anyway, and the karma system means your comments will be at -1 before you can register a new account.

Ironically, it seems Slashdot works as well as it does just because of the sheer volume of all the crap they actually welcome at the site.

[ Parent ]

digg is a great concept (none / 1) (#44)
by blackbart on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:36:33 PM EST

implemented to a mediocre degree. It nets out as a winner tho. Slashdot's firehose not so much.

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred
[ Parent ]

It's a lot harder than that. (3.00 / 5) (#33)
by givemegmail111 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:22:37 PM EST

See, what you're suggesting would require Rusty to actually do some work. And that wasn't likely to happen even before Rusty's new kid came along.

--
McDonalds: i'm lovin' it
Start your day tastefully with a Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddle, only at McDonalds.
Rusty fix my sig, dammit!
[ Parent ]
I would strictly enforce the (2.00 / 5) (#32)
by achievingfluidity on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:19:48 PM EST

2 diary restriction. If a third is posted, then no posting but a warning is issued, if a fourth attempt is made automatically wipe user, comments, diaries, ratings and stories. No ifs ands or buts.

this would then force them to spend a lot of time and burn lots of uids to flood the ghetto.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


that's something that should be automated (2.83 / 6) (#38)
by rhiannon on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:04:14 PM EST

This is exactly the kind of shit that computers are supposed to be used for.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
exactly (1.00 / 2) (#42)
by achievingfluidity on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:55:12 PM EST

this would be an automated process.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


[ Parent ]

well I guess that would require working on scoop (none / 1) (#47)
by rhiannon on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:47:29 PM EST

and implementing it at k5, which is never going to happen....

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
Why be so drastic? (3.00 / 2) (#159)
by localroger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:19:10 PM EST

Just enforce a time limit per account on new diaries. Slashdot does exactly this on comments, the code should be about 5 lines.

For a little more creativity you might allow two diaries back to back, but then six or twelve hours before a third is allowed. This way users don't lock themselves out of that MASSIVELY CREATIVE THOUGHT just because their last diary was too recent.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]

Or... (none / 1) (#48)
by the77x42 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 09:45:20 PM EST

You could just have one of the random number sequence things in a hard-to-read box that you must type in before you can:

  1. create an account
  2. post a comment
  3. post a diary
  4. post a story

Or...

You can limit the number of posts per time period based on IP address. E.g. one post per 30 seconds, etc.

Or...

You can have just let the diary section be, because, we'll, it is just that -- a diary section. Don't scripts needs to express themselves?


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

I remember (none / 1) (#49)
by Pirengle on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:41:39 PM EST

the stink we simple kurons raised when the Diary section was proposed in the first place.

Karma's a bitch, isn't it?


♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫
A sure-fire way to make friends and influence people: transform the letters "l" and "i" into "-1"s whenever posting. Instant wit!

have you tried (3.00 / 2) (#52)
by postDigital on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:51:34 AM EST

emailing help AT kuro5hin.org?

It these are posts via a script, then they qualify as SPAM, at least by my definition.

In my experience, Kuro5hin Admins have shown that they care about SPAM, and will quickly remove it, as well as deactivate the account from which it was spawned, in a timely manner. They do need to be notified though, as there are far too many new posts on this site to expect management to exert close scrutiny on them.



It's infrequently read and swamped (none / 1) (#157)
by localroger on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:15:02 PM EST

...with spam, so it's very easy for a legitimate query to be lost or unnoticed.

alexboko: I think, how do animals view our behavior?
Sgt York: Opening
[ Parent ]
again, my experience has shown it to be effective (none / 0) (#222)
by postDigital on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 05:51:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I have always gotten a reply and often an action.$ (none / 0) (#251)
by skyknight on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:31:06 AM EST



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
classic (1.50 / 12) (#54)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:15:51 AM EST

"this site needs"/ "this town needs"/ "this country needs"

volunteers, moderators, responsible politicians, good people, blah blah blah

hey assholes: why don't YOU step up and do whatever it is you think needs doing?

i'm sick of people like you: see a problem? the STEP THE FUCK UP, or SHUT THE FUCK UP

because if you WANT something done, DO IT THE FUCK YOURSELF

don't fucking expect someone else to do something thankless. you see something that needs to be done, you speak out about it, BUT YOU WON'T DO IT?!

the world doesn't exist to serve YOU


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Oh, hay good advice (2.42 / 7) (#55)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:30:09 AM EST

Is there like a box I can click or whatever to turn on my moderator status? I'm new here so I haven't figured it all out, but you speech just now totally invigorated my spirits.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

very good point (1.33 / 3) (#56)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:37:22 AM EST

so shut the fuck up, and write your own goddamn website asshole, like i am doing, for my own serious problem with k5

there are two people in this world: doers, and whiners

why the fuck do you think rusty should change things around just because you whine?

he shouldn't. so take all that energy, shutt eh fuck up AND DO IT YOURSELF. roll your own site whiner


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You seem pretty busy over here. (2.40 / 5) (#57)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:39:16 AM EST

Where do you get the time since your 'writing your own site'?
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

i'm also making a movie, and holding down a job (1.66 / 3) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:41:52 AM EST

neither movie nor website is done, or probably will be done for a long time

however, i'm still fucking smart enough to know that slowly doing something yourself, even if marginally moving forward, is still better than being a whiny useless bitch expecting someone else to do what you want to do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, like I said, you seem pretty busy over here. (2.00 / 3) (#59)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:43:34 AM EST

You seem to be doing a lot of work on it. I can't wait to see it.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

i don't understand your point nt (2.00 / 2) (#60)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:47:27 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No, don't take me wrong, it's a great idea (2.50 / 6) (#61)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:50:19 AM EST

I mean, if everyone else here just shut up and put out a scoop/K5 like site of their own, then things would be better. We'd all be doers. People who go out there and take things by the horns. Then, we'd have, in about 7 years, going at the rate of your present progress, about 20 - 30 new sites getting 1/20th or 1/30th the traffic that K5 does! And 20 - 30 x the bugs!!!!

And then, we could all sit back and say, "HAY man, you know I'm a doer. I get things done. I don't sit around and wait for things. I make them come to me!"

That sure would be great. Much better than fixing K5.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

personally (2.00 / 2) (#63)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:59:52 AM EST

i think that if a site was built in the spirit of k5, but fixed some of the failures of k5, then it would get 10x more traffic

i mean look at digg: all it does is what slashdot does slightly different, and it's massive traffic, and slashdot was completely unaffected

the market is not fixed. in fact, if someone wrote something better than k5, right in the middle of k5's turf, k5 would probably chug along happily, traffic unaffected, while the other site took off

did digg cannibalize slashdot? no

the market is not fixed


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh, so then your solution is wrong and things (2.25 / 4) (#65)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:02:42 AM EST

should be fixed, since a ton of new sites run badly does not help a good site run fairly well, but in need of updating to the tastes and needs of the present day.

Gotcha.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

rusty's having a kid in a few hours (2.00 / 2) (#66)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:07:27 AM EST

you tell me what his priorities are right now

it would be nice to reach into k5 and magically fix what needs to be fixed. but you don't have the manpower, the ability or the ear of the man who runs the place. so even if k5 is 2 millimeters form being the best discussion baord that ever existed, there it will lay. it ain't budging

it is a lot harder to roll your own site, get the traffic. maybe you will build something worse in fact

but guess what? it's the only real option available to you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, your solution is harder. (2.40 / 5) (#72)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:43:09 AM EST

For a single person. For 30 people it's 30x harder and a lot more than that less likely.

Actually, given the odds, our best bet is to get rusty to fix things or just stop caring so much.

Either way, your emotional knee-jerk solution has made for an amusing hour.

For that, I thank you. America would not be the country it is without the efforst of you and those like you.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

thank you, '80s american television personality (2.00 / 2) (#74)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:49:03 AM EST

where would america be without the rest of the world constantly loving and loathing it?

i declare you worthy of continuing to consume our great american cultural detritus, dear pointless america-obsessed loser

small hint: there's a big world out there, that has absolutely nothing to do with americans at all. even me, an AMERICAN knows that (shock! awe!)

sadly, you apparently don't know that. otherwise, you'd grow a pair of testicles, and stop centering your entire universe on the usa: in love or hate, it's all the same


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Guess what. (2.40 / 5) (#76)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:54:36 AM EST

Your entire response was the one Americans give to non-Americans. That's what i so funny about the thing. The idea that DOING SOMETHING is the ultimate answer to any problem. Just rush on in there and get 'er done, Johnny. That's the way we do things around here.

ror
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

huh? (2.00 / 2) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:59:16 AM EST

i don't understand, were you trying to complement the usa?

or do you honestly think that making fun of the idea of doing something rather than whining about it is an actual valid point of view on any problem in this world?

you seemed to have just given the best complement someone can ever give the usa, and yet you seem to have said it in such a way that you think it's silly

either your sense of humor is way better than i give you credit for, or you are one of the most unintentionally hilarious america-centered nonamericans (in love or hate, it's all the same) i have come across in awhile

either, way:

HAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think the US's record on doing before thinking (2.00 / 3) (#83)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:40:52 PM EST

is fairly well-established and one of the reasons smart countries don't do the same. However, as the fact that the very notion itself is some kind of morally upstanding character trait in the US, most Americans I've ever talked with (being my neighbors that is), have no idea what I'm talking about.

So, yes, sit back, review our dismal plan, and try and understand why it is mind-bogglingly stupid, as most of us can well see.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

acting without thinking (2.00 / 2) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:06:02 PM EST

is a crime

so is thinking without acting, in equal moral failure and intellectual failure

the idea of course is to act, with such thought as time allows

the emphasis being on the point that no matter what, you must act

you can criticize the usa for acting inappropriately, but you can't criticize the usa at all from a position that thinks no action is supposed be in any way intellectually or morally superior, on any question in the world

in fact, acting poorly and resulting in negative consequences is sitll superior to do nothing, because it shows you have intentions. not acting at all simply means you don't care

but please, keep talking, it makes so much difference, and proves you care so much (snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I can't wait to see your site. (2.40 / 5) (#93)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:36:46 PM EST

Given that your advice to all of us was so well-thought out, I'm sure that both your movie and your site should just rawk.

Tell me, thoguh, with your movie, how are your going to address the issue of people being dressed in styles that are nearly 5 years old while you are still filming in another 5 years?

In a related question, when your site finally gets put up, how will you address the issue of it being a dinosaur before it is born?
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

i have a wonderful answer for you (1.66 / 3) (#100)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:02:05 PM EST

whatever i do, no matter how badly, it will still be superior to someone who does nothing, and only criticizes others


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Wow. Now that answer is beyond stupid. (none / 1) (#134)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:09:05 PM EST

How many artists out there would have made this world a better place by having listened to the critics. A vast number in a sea of a few who didn't and were able to prove them wrong.

Unfortunately, the CriticsTM are right 90% of the time, if not more.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

no critics are right 99% of the time (none / 1) (#142)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:29:04 PM EST

but in the end, it's the artists that matter, not the critics

so i'm glad you think that you being a critic is somehow superior to being an artist

an artist's life work can often be summed up as: shit

but apparently, you'd rather be the fly on that shit, rather than make some shit of your own

fascinating little parasitical zone of comfort you've carved out for yourself there: Magnum PI: boil on the ass of bad artists (snicker)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Actually, if the critics are right 99%, it's the (none / 1) (#188)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:41:49 PM EST

critics that make the way for the artists. At best, artists are only 'mattering' 50% of the time. If you are not a complete moron, I think you might realize this.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

he's making a new site (1.50 / 2) (#84)
by blackbart on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:42:01 PM EST

its called "kurospic.org"

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred
[ Parent ]

OH hay thanks for the update (1.50 / 2) (#85)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:43:48 PM EST

We covered that, bro.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

also he's making a website (none / 1) (#86)
by blackbart on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:49:02 PM EST

what are you doing besides whining?

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred
[ Parent ]

Whinig? Where di I whine about anything? (2.00 / 3) (#87)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:55:38 PM EST

Actually, I recommended not bothering to whine, while ackowledging the need for some updates.

And,yes, we're well-aware of his doing things. That was the whole point of this conversation. You may have missed it,s o I'll sum up: DOING SOMETHING is not the ultimate answer all the time. We Americans should get over that fact.

I hope he does do something. Then, when it either turns out to be Husi or one of the many other scoop sites with even less traffic, he'll understand why his idiotic suggestion that evryone get on out there and git 'er dun is the logic of people behind the times.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

classic (2.00 / 2) (#89)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:10:09 PM EST

so your position is: it is better to do nothing, with 100% certainty of failure, than to do something, anything, with 99% chance of failure

you are a classic loser. you with great pride announce the superiority of doing nothing, and then sit back and make fun of anyone who tries anything as they crash and burn

it's a wonderful way to stoke your feeling of self-centered superiority

until that 1 in 100 that actually succeeds

you sir are a classic: loud, dumb, arrogant

you are more american than i could ever be

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Imagine if doctors thought like that. (3.00 / 2) (#91)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:34:13 PM EST

First, do no harm.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
No, no, no you must DO SOMETHING!!!!! (2.40 / 5) (#94)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:44:36 PM EST

I mean, Iraq, for instance. We had to go on in there and GIT 'ER DUN, right? Otherwise, we'd just look all cynical and stuff.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

exactly (2.00 / 2) (#98)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:59:33 PM EST

there's some other guys working hard on their "solution" to the iraq situation right now. whose "solution" do you like better? iran's? al qaeda's? saddam's? (before the war)

because you certainly don't like the american's

go ahead darling, make your choice


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well, let's see: (1.50 / 2) (#133)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:07:18 PM EST

Saddam had no connection at all to 9/11 and we were blatantly lied to about what he WAS doing, as hstory has regularily shown, and now a ton of people are dying in what has definitely become Vietnam 2, so, ummm, hmmm.....I guess doing something has shown itself in this case to have only done worse, since Saddam could have done nothing to us, planned on doing nothing to us and the argument that we are freeing the Iraqi people from a vicious dictator could be used on any number of dictators in the past and present who we haven't bothered to deal with.

Ummmmm....Sudan anyone?!?!?
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, ever (none / 1) (#144)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:34:03 PM EST

anyone who believed that is a fucking moron

but anyone who believes that's the real reason iraq was invaded is an even larger moron

and that's a funny thing about vietnam: that was part of a larger global war against communism, which the west won in the end

the reason the usa invaded iraq is to try to buttress that area of the world up from the global spread of militant fundamentalist islam. which is the way iraq probably would have gone after the rotten saddam hussein fell. saddam hussein was going to fall, most definitely, either at the hand of al qaeda, the theocracy of iran, or the usa

which do you prefer? or do you prefer saddam, and then his sons, stay in power?

please tell an iraqi that, they'll be delighted and give you hugs and kisses (snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hey, history major, guess what. (1.50 / 2) (#189)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:46:14 PM EST

The only reason the West won against Communism is not because the West has had much impact. You might want to look that up. There are no countries I can think of who changed their ideals from Communism to Capitalism because the West intervened.

Also, as we will inevitably do in Iraq, we lost in Vietnam. Luckily we neevr actually declared war. Or, if we did, it was for a few brief moments, and then never left. Like in Iraq. Then we lost to people with pop-guns in laundry hampers.

The only countries we ever really trounced were Nazi Germany, The US itself, and the Philipine islands.

So, tell me: does being as thoroughly out of touch with the facts as you are help you with your vampire movies or hurt you?
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

I want you NOW!!!!! (none / 1) (#191)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:50:44 PM EST


_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

darling (2.00 / 2) (#97)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:58:08 PM EST

appendicitis is a problem where fixing it is obvious: remove the appendix

how do you fix iraq? the usa has one idea. iran has another. al qaeda has a third

so who has the right answer? the person who works the hardest at their version of a solution

welcome to reality friend. it's not a thought problem. no one agrees at what the right solution is. in fact some problems in this world have nothing to do with thought at all, and are all about willpower: whoever wishes into being the hardest, and works the hardest, gets what is "right"

the victor writes the history books. on some problems in life, a desire to work hard for your version of a solution is sometimes all there is


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The US won't be writing many history books in (none / 0) (#107)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:24:04 PM EST

Iraq then.

Iraq could have been done properly, but you had to go all unilateral on its ass. Now 700k people don't think you are cynics, Al Queada is stronger than ever, public support is dropping even further and soon you'll be the only country left unless the UN decides to help fix up the mess you've left.

What you thought was appendicitis was just wind, maybe some antibiotics will help that MRSA?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

(smirk) (none / 1) (#109)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:29:45 PM EST

the usa only went unilateral because the rest of the world did not help

every country in the world owed it to iraqis to rescue them from saddam. the usa answered the call. other countries did not. the problem is not that the usa went in, the problem is that other countries didn't go in

whatever the usa did in iraq, no matter how badly, it was and always will be superior to any country that did nothing for iraqis at all

you can't criticize the usa for doing something, anything, when the alternative is doing nothing at all


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I am critising you for doing anything (none / 0) (#113)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:49:34 PM EST

The proper response was to wait until you had world wide support and then perhaps the UN could have sent in a peace keeping force from a Muslim country that the locals would have respected.

Instead you wanted the world to think there were WMDs, Al Queada, Bin Laden, and 9/11 perpetrators hanging out there, and rightly, no one wanted to go in on false pretexts.

Now Iraqis are worse off than they were under Saddam. That's exactly like removing an appendix when someone has wind, and getting them infected with life threatening MRSA. That's why first, do no harm, is a better attitude than do anything rather than nothing.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#114)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:51:30 PM EST

"just wait, everything will sort itself out"

dude, you really don't understand how this world works


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Just wait until you have support or Saddam died. (none / 0) (#118)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:05:35 PM EST

He would have been dead long before Iraq is as safe as it was under him now thanks to the US, and I know that's not saying much. With support it could have actually been better, and with patience and work you would have eventually gotten that.

Just waiting is exactly what doctors do, until they can be SURE that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

#1 (none / 1) (#119)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:14:44 PM EST

saddam had two wonderful cheerful loving and kind (annointed to replace saddam) sons, if you hadn't noticed

#2: al qaeda hated saddam. but i forgot: al qaeda would wait for saddam to die, the only honorable thing to do if the usa waited. of course, how could i be so silly

#3: iraq is bordered by an archenemy theocracy. oh, but i forgot: iran would wait and not get involved too, honoring the usa for not getting involved. so obvious

here's a small tap of the cluebat for your cotton candy filled head: on many questions in this world, and most certainly questions on the likes of iraq, the correct answer is defined only by who works the hardest for an answer, any answer. the winner in iraq will be the cause that works the hardest to exert its vision of what iraq should become. that, and that alone is the truth about the future of iraq. in 1999, in 2001, in 2003, in 2005, and today

on the quesiton of iraq, whoever and whatever fights for the future of iraq defines the future of iraq

but i forgot: according to you, if you do a complicated thought experiment in your coffee bar armchair, and don't lift a finger, you prevail in iraq

(snicker)

thought and action. on some questions in life, (a math problem) thought is all there is), on other questions in life (the future of a country), action is all there is

you don't understand how the world you work in works


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Doing nothing, would have left Iraq in a better (none / 0) (#122)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:43:33 PM EST

state than it is today. Now it will be a quagmire for our entire lives.

World support would have come eventually, if the case was based on fact and not lies.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:52:54 PM EST

yes, because it is better to live under the boot of a tyrant, isn't it?

it's important to live under the boot of a tyrant, because when tons of people are killed and disappeared indiscriminantly, it's all for the best that you just not hearing about or being bother by it, right?

you just don't want all of the murder to be in your newspaper. better to have saddam around to sweep the deaths into the back pages, right?

and even more importantly: i'm certain your average iraqi would be delighted to hear you tell them they were better off under saddam

dude, you're beyond fucking clueless and stupid. you are, frankly, evil

if you want to know what kind of citizen of a country under stalin or hitler or pol pot or saddam hussein would support that evil bastard: look in the mirror asshole. "i don't care about how many dead and dying there are, i just don't want to hear about it"

"World support would have come eventually"

no it wouldn't

because the world is populated by too many self-interested inert uncaring assholes like you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

who is killing who in iraq right now? nt (none / 0) (#130)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:03:50 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i know nothing (none / 1) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:09:07 PM EST

not a damn thing

but it is nice to meet people like you on the internet, where i get the amazing glorious piece of wisdom that i should blame the usa for deaths caused by the guys the usa is fighting

that's some amazing logic that did not occur to me before

i thank you for that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That happenned a lot under Saddam. Oh, wait. $ (none / 0) (#145)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:36:09 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
you're trying to support my pov, right? (none / 1) (#149)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:52:36 PM EST

because that's the guy the usa removed

(smacks forehead)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're saying that Al Qeada killing people is a (none / 0) (#151)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:31:22 PM EST

positive aspect of the USA removing Saddam?

That's logic in your world is it?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

more of such logic: (none / 1) (#154)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:46:33 PM EST

"al qaeda should have known that attacking a warlike country like the usa with a retard like gw bush at its helm, that the country would lash out and attack iraq, having nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. therefore, al qaeda is ultimately responsible for the us invading iraq"

?!

that's your logic at work dude

see, i'm a funny guy. when al qaeda blows up a bomb in iraq, i say... concentrate hard now... that al qaeda is responsible. when the us invades iraq, i say the usa is responsible for... drum roll please... invading iraq

i'm pretty weird that way huh?

i'm sorry i don't have those fancy creative ways of incriminating the actors in a struggle for what it's ENEMY does

but don't let those fancy notions of accountability and responsibility get in the way there dear friend. as we all know, if something bad happens in the world, the usa is ultimately responsible, someway or another, even when the act is committed by people the usa is actively fighting

it's a crazy world that way

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Funny, it doesn't work that way in law. (none / 0) (#161)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:26:12 PM EST

If the rise of Al Qaeda could have been reasonably foreseen as a consequence of US actions in Iraq, then the US is in fact responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and therefore the damage they cause.

This does not diminish the responsibility of Al Qaeda, but neither does it absolve the US of responsibility.

The US has been negligent and reckless with its Iraq invasion, while on the other hand, a UN backed invasion would not have given rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Funny, it doesn't work that way in law. (none / 0) (#162)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:29:55 PM EST

If the rise of Al Qaeda could have been reasonably foreseen as a consequence of US actions in Iraq, then the US is in fact responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and therefore the damage they cause.

This does not diminish the responsibility of Al Qaeda, but neither does it absolve the US of responsibility.

The US has been negligent and reckless with its Iraq invasion, while on the other hand, a UN backed invasion would not have given rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

awesome (none / 1) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:38:09 PM EST

because the usa doesn't have the benefit of hindsight, it is responsible for what evil assholes do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i have to learn to read all of a post (none / 1) (#164)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:40:23 PM EST

"a UN backed invasion would not have given rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq"

why am i talking to you?

you sir are a complete and utter moron

"a UN backed invasion would not have given rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq"

wow


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The UN could have sent in a Muslim army that would (none / 0) (#166)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:50:05 PM EST

be supported by the Iraqis and would have given Al Qaeda no support.

Al Qaeda was a reasonable and foreseeable response to the invasion, no hindsight needed.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#168)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:51:50 PM EST

unggh

uh

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you. are. a. fucking. moron.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You win. Such a compelling argument. I'm done $ (none / 0) (#170)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:56:12 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
AL QAEDA KILLS MUSLIMS TO FURTHER POWER (none / 1) (#175)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:15:21 PM EST

IN FACT AL QAEDA KILLS **MOSTLY** MUSLIMS

FUCKING RETARD

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That's WHO they kill, not WHY they kill. (none / 0) (#176)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:20:02 PM EST

They're in Iraq because the US is in Iraq.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
you are such a fucking moron (none / 1) (#179)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:29:50 PM EST

al qaeda does not kill in the name of the usa

al qaeda kills in the name of reviving the caliphate

al qaeda blew up the un in iraq, remember darling?

al qaeda kills anyone, anyone sweetpoo, who get sin their way

al qaeda hates saddam hussein. they had him in their sites long before the us got there cuteykins

in fct, the usa was afraid iraq was going to fall to al qaeda

furthermore, bouncycakes, al qaeda in iraq is foregin fighters. normal iraqis have no control over them

all the best fucktard on your attempts to grasp the fucking obvious

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think you may have a major issue with your site. (2.00 / 3) (#92)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:34:44 PM EST

If your ability to read is as weak as your ability to argue.

I think I stated fairly clearly that fixing the present system and not comlpaining are what should be done.

The difference is, that's actually a solution.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

small clue about life for you (2.00 / 2) (#95)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:55:21 PM EST

there are some problems, math problems, for example, that take little actual effort, and some thought

on the other extreme are problems that have nothing to do with being right and wrong, and everything to do with exerting effort, any effort

for example, we both agree al qaeda's view of the world is incredibly stupid. however, al qaeda is working very hard to see that the world as it sees it comes into being. that means they matter. because if the world ever does come to be as they see it, then they have been "right" all along, where being right simply means whoever prevails in a given situation

same with the usa in iraq. hoeny, sometime sin life all that matters, all that you have, is that you show you are willing to fight for something, anything. doesn't matter fi you are right or wrong. that you are there fighting for it, whatever it is, shapes the world with much more certainty than being "right" in some armchair in a coffee shop pontificating on this or that

if the usa leaves iraq, somebody, ANYBODY has to come in and fill the void and work towards their idea of a "right solution": iran? al qaeda? doesn't matter: WHOEVER exerts the most effort is right. because being "right" is all about exerting effort, and no more: the desire to make a difference is more right than any pointless thought experiment that results in no real world effort

you have a solution: "fix the current system"

ok. where's the effort? where's the willpower?

exactly. so you don't really have a solution at all. because you have no willpower or effort on your side

you just don't even understand how the world you live in actually works


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hey thanks for the life lesson. (none / 1) (#137)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:12:29 PM EST

Can't wait to see the site.

Also, you didn't answer the question. You just stood on the sidelines and took potshoits at an answer you know to be correct, but which interferes with your blinkered, Romantic view of life.

But, hey thanks for the life lesson. I needed to hear about that from a guy making a horror movie and living at home with Mom, anyway. That sector of society usually has a fairly solid grasp on reality.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

you're welcome (none / 1) (#141)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:25:33 PM EST

glad to be of help. maybe someday you'll do something on your own, rather than just criticizing others and think that makes something of yourself

good luck! you can do it! I GOT FAITH IN YOU!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hold on. Did you just snicker? (1.50 / 2) (#187)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:39:33 PM EST

Who the hell snickers? Willingly?

I can see that you still haven't gotten the point. That makes my day.

Thanks.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

boy did i miss an easy joke (none / 1) (#108)
by blackbart on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:27:43 PM EST

kuro5pic


[ Parent ]
i don't get it nt (none / 0) (#110)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:31:12 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yes. We know. (none / 1) (#192)
by Hiphopopotamus on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:51:39 PM EST


_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

WTF you're retarded (or trolling). (none / 1) (#62)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:52:28 AM EST

Did you see the diary section over the weekend?

Rusty has even stopped new user registrations, so its not like even he doesn't realise something must be done to keep THIS SITE alive.

What we are discussing here is exactly WHAT should be done. No one is saying we expect Rusty to do a lot of work to implement it. In the end, he might just end up selecting a few more moderators... Or maybe someone will decide to implement new features into Scoop, but until there is some consensus on what to do, why do it?

And no, building your own website doesn't count. Actually, do that, go fight all the insightful stories there so you don't have to fight them over here.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

what is the diary section? (2.00 / 2) (#64)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:01:38 AM EST

a ghetto. always has been a ghetto. who pays attention to the fucking diary section?

meanwhile, the frotn page has stagnated, that's the real problem, and i know why

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What's the diary? Here's a link to my diary entry (3.00 / 3) (#67)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:13:07 AM EST

LOL

The diary wasn't a ghetto this weekend, there was no crack to be found, it had been nuked.

Also, you discussed your idea, no one likes it, so now you have to go do it on your own. Well done, so what? Your idea is stupid. Infact, you just whine that no one will implement it here for you.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i plead ignorance (2.00 / 2) (#68)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:14:33 AM EST

please, exactly what happened in the diary section. please explain. i am ignorant. make me feel the great rush of terror and outrage you feel. what is the crime that happened. k thx bye


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The only outrage and terror I have is towards you, (none / 1) (#69)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:27:25 AM EST

that in your ignorance you feel the need to shout everyone else down, typical.

At least you admit your ignorance this time.

It was simply a good old fashioned crapflood, using a few userids, some randomness thrown into the diary entries, asci art and page widening, he generated about 20-40 diaries an hour. Whenever Rusty was here, it seemed trivial for him to fix, but as soon as he left, the flood would continue. I guess IP banning didn't work for some reason.

The story just says that if Rusty gave a few more people admin rights, then this wouldn't have been a problem, but right now, new user registrations have been shut down again.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i still don't understand the problem (2.00 / 2) (#70)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:31:08 AM EST

the problem is exactly what i thought it was: a simple crapflood

dude: it's the DIARY SECTION

WHO FUCKING CARES

the FRONTPAGE section is the life of this website, and THAT part's downfall due to negative assholes is the death of this site, not the diary section

kill the frontpage, you break k5's back. wiping out the diary section is an easy afterthought

you're focusing on the wrong war


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No one's attacking the front page, good stories (none / 1) (#71)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:41:03 AM EST

still make it.

On the other hand, plenty of people here spend their time writing, reading and commenting on diaries in between writing, reading, commenting on and moderating worthwhile stories.

The diaries are the lubricant that keep the stories flowing. K5 might survive without a diary section, but probably wont be as healthy.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (2.00 / 2) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:52:04 AM EST

it would be nice to reach into k5 and magically fix what needs to be fixed. but you don't have the manpower, the ability, or the trust of the man who runs the place. so even if k5 is 2 millimeters from being the best discussion board that ever existed, it ain't budging

it is a lot harder to roll your own site, get the traffic. maybe you will build something worse in fact. but guess what? it's the only real option available to you

i think that if a site was built in the spirit of k5, but fixed some of the failures of k5, then it would get 10x more traffic. i mean look at digg: all it does is what slashdot does slightly different, and it's massive traffic, and slashdot was completely unaffected

the market is not fixed. in fact, if someone wrote something better than k5, right in the middle of k5's turf, k5 would probably chug along happily, traffic unaffected, while the other site took off

did digg cannibalize slashdot? no

the market is not fixed. so get a codin' asshole. or keep on whining for your next meal, as if anyone here is supposed to respect that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ignorance is bliss, you blissful tard (none / 1) (#80)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:18:34 PM EST

Rusty is aware of the situation. He even said, he will look into it at the end of the week.

It takes almost no manpower to add a few more moderators, and maybe its as simple as that.

If everyone (including Rusty) decided on what new feature should be added, then we have access to the Scoop codebase, anyone could add it and Rusty might even decide to accept it for K5.

The question is, though, what feature? Ignore users, Abuse reports stop ability to post diaries, harsher limits on diary postings? Without some idea of what is needed though, doing something is useless for K5. That is the point of discussion.

This seems much more likely than your NIH vaporware ever being useful to me.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

2 problems for you from the blissful tard (2.33 / 3) (#82)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:39:17 PM EST

  1. trust. how the fuck does rusty know who to trust? "hi, here's the code and an admin password". "k thx, here's goatse.cx on the front page"

  2. lots and lots of work. for no money, and no appreciation, and continued criticism and complaints from whiners, utterly thankless

you go for it dude. you climb the great lubricated mountains of thankless tons of work and not knowing who to trust. GO FOR IT DUDE

meanwhile, over here, building a whole new site on your own is actually more fruitful than surmounting those 2 obstacles

really. but please, keep calling me a blissful tard. because i'm the ignorant one. pfffffffffft


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

More fruitful - BWAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#90)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:28:55 PM EST

Where is your code? All in your head. Rusty already says - here's the code.

Rusty obviously cares for this site, despite it being a thankless, difficult, unappreciated job.

Your solution is to abandon K5. We don't need to write yet another blog engine to do that, and I doubt that's what Rusty wants either.

You have done less than nothing for K5, just added negativity, whining and complaints for anyone who even proposes a possible solution.

Would you care to bet that you get your site running before Rusty has a fix for this (either technical or social)? Or are you all hot (vaporw)air?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i'm not abandoning k5 (none / 1) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:07:04 PM EST

i'll always be here

i just won't devote any more energy to writing a story that gets everyone to comment 10 times, with a count of over a thousand comments (as i've done a few times before) only to have the thing voted into oblivion by people who are obviously not interested in the health of k5 (as the health of k5 is it's content: stories, comments, etc.)

digg came along out of nowhere, and didn't touch slashdot's traffic at all, even though thematically, it is but a slight tweak to what slashdot does

if my site is successful, it would't cannibalize k5 at all

and btw, the success of my site: that's highly doubtful. why do you think i need you to tell me that? but apparently, you need me to tell you something: making a bad site is still superior to making no site at all, or depending upon someone else to make your fixes for you to k5


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Making a new site is completely orthoganal to (none / 0) (#103)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:16:21 PM EST

fixing k5...

Its absolutely USELESS for K5, even without cannibalising it.

Just because you troll your own stories to get lots of comments doesn't make your stories any good, but good luck with your highly doubtful imaginary site.

Proposing fixes is the first step to creating fixes, then Rusty can decide if he wants them or not. Whether you like it or not, we are dependent on Rusty for K5, and I am absolutely certain the problem will be fixed.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

how can i convince someone so retarded as you? (none / 1) (#105)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:20:59 PM EST

k5 has a monopoly on user generated ranked content?

my stories only get voted up because i troll them?

someone who boldly announces that they are dependent upon someone else to do something for them thinks they have a right to tell me, to tell ANYONE, to stfu? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. are you a submissive lazy tard or a dominant lazy tard? make up your mind: either you follow someone blindly, whining, rusty, as you say you do here, or you are master of your own path, and therefore actually have a right to tell me what to do, because you've proven to me you are willing to take the initiative on things yourself. a follower or a leader. you choose. but either way, you're still a lazy tard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are contradicting yourself (none / 0) (#111)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:38:21 PM EST

i just won't devote any more energy to writing a story that gets everyone to comment 10 times, with a count of over a thousand comments (as i've done a few times before) only to have the thing voted into oblivion

my stories only get voted up because i troll them?

Which is it? I know that in your perfect world, your stories would only get voted up because you trolled them.

We are dependent on Rusty for K5. What is so hard to understand there? All we CAN do is offer ideas, perhaps implement them, and allow Rusty to do with our offerings as he likes, for K5.

The fact that there are other websites, and your talk about an imaginary website, is of no consequence to K5, and does no good at all.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

oh hai (none / 1) (#112)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:43:39 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/user/circletimessquare/stories

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=search&offset=0&old_count=30&type=author &section=&string=circletimessquare&search=Search&search_archive= yes&count=30

and now for the final bit of insight that should work on you like sunlight on a vampire:

whatever i do, no matter how badly, will still be superior to someone who depends upon others to do something for them


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I never said that you didn't get stories posted (none / 0) (#115)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:58:11 PM EST

I said that some stories you troll (and therefore get lots of comments) don't get posted. You know, like the ones you complained about? I know the subtle difference might be difficult for you to comprehend.

will still be superior to someone who depends upon others to do something for them
You depend on Rusty for the continued existence of all your comments here. You can write all the websites you like, you can own the next digg, and you will still be dependent on Rusty to make improvements on K5.

Good thing you don't depend on him to argue badly.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

huh? i don't depend upon rusty for anything (none / 1) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:03:56 PM EST

i am thankful for rusty for creating k5, as it has been a very enjoyable site in my life. i get to meet people less intelligent than me, and show them up to be retards

(pointing)

there's a difference between appreciation and depdendence. i appreciate k5, i'm not dependenant on it. if rusty shut the site down tomorrow, i would miss it, but i won't slit my wrists. mainly because i have other outlets in my life... including the potential to make a possible replacement for k5

what do you have? you who admits to no creative spark of your own? what do you do when those you depend on aren't there? hmmm?

it sucks to be the parasite in life i guess

you're just sad and pathetic

but keep talking, keep dancing. dance for circletimessquare little bug. entertain me

(smirk)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You think everyone here would slit their (none / 0) (#120)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:25:02 PM EST

wrists if K5 disappeared tomorrow? Really?

I admit no creative spark? Oh, argument by making shit up.

Just for your info, I wrote a threaded, tagged and comment rated website in Ruby on Rails in about three weeks, just to experiment with RoR. Its not hard, but I have other things to do than run a website.

No one here is demanding Rusty DO A SINGLE thing.

But we do what we can, discuss solutions to a problem, which has caused new user registration to be closed, for k5, and you think this is a parasitic activity? I'd say its a creative activity...

If a good idea emerges, it might appear in Scoop even if it doesn't get to K5. Something will be created.

what do you do when those you depend on aren't there?
We depend on Rusty to fix K5 (not Scoop), that's a fact. If K5 is broken, I go elsewhere, you digg? I might even propose a solution if I can too. Which is more than you are doing.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 1) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:30:04 PM EST

if it's worth doing, shut up and do it yourself

if it depends upon someone else doing something, shut up and do it yourself

in short, shut up and do it yourself


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

None of us CAN fix k5 ourselves (none / 0) (#123)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:48:00 PM EST

That's the point...

All we can do is comment on the situation, propose solutions and maybe implement them in Scoop.

Why don't YOU fix K5 mister I'm so smart and everyone else is a retard?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

oh hai (none / 1) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:55:23 PM EST

i guess you haven't noticed, but you're talking to the guy who says to roll your own website, and stop trying to convince rusty to fix k5

please make a note of it before talking next time

k thx retard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And your talking to a guy who says offer solutions (none / 0) (#129)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:01:04 PM EST

for k5 rather than go on about other other irrelevant websites.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
wait (2.00 / 2) (#132)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:05:51 PM EST

are you the same fuckknob i got in a massive trollthread about heroin use?

you're stubborn, that's one thing you got

unfortunately, you have no brains, and you have no heart


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think and care strongly about these issues (none / 1) (#138)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:13:47 PM EST

One day I hope you might realise I am right, and how wrong you are.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i think you do care strongly (2.00 / 2) (#140)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:17:42 PM EST

unfortunately, as long as your solution is to do nothing except whine, or think that is valid to any problem, you're not going to make much headway in life

that's what i mean by you having no heart: heart is all about faith in a solution, and working towards it. and yet on various problems, all i see you do is acceptance of that which should not be accepted: drug addiction, saddam hussein, a broken website, and whining about it. thinking that acceptance has any validity, thinking whining has any validity. and thus your lack of a brain

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Whining is different from offering solutions. (3.00 / 2) (#143)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:29:26 PM EST

Whining is simply complaining... in each case I have a solution.

K5 --> Ignore user feature or Abuse reports stop diary posting feature.

Saddam Hussein --> obtain UN consensus, send in Muslim peace keeping force.

Heroin --> Legalise, educate, regulate.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

your answers, translated: (1.00 / 2) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:48:48 PM EST

K5 --> i'm not actually going to do anything myself

Saddam Hussein --> i don't want to be involved

Heroin --> look the other way at the lives ruined by zombification at the hands of heroin

dude, there is no heart in you

and, in the end, there is one sure way to defeat you: ignore you. you have spent the totality of every post i have read of yours announcing loudly and proudly that you are not going to do a damn thing

so how does my ideology defeat your ideology?

it doesn't. you defeat yourself. my ideology calls for action, and i am willing to pledge myself to that action myself. and action gets done

your ideology calls for avoidance and doing nothing

those who do nothing to shape the world in their image get shaped by the world instead: they just disappear. their entire ideolgoy simply fades from the earth

it's a difficult lesson for you, but one you must learn: on any question you care about, being right does not define winning the fight. acting defines winning the fight, regardless of how right or wrong you are

here's a thought experiment for you:

the amish, mennonites, etc. only exist within the larger framework of the united states. they don't exist on their own as discreet social units. they are merely part of a larger whole. as independent examples of any functionally valid social example, they fail

however, in your mind plenty of peaceniks wish to use them as discreet examples of a certain behavior. except that their behavior: say their disavowal of war, would be impossible if they did not exist within the coccoon of the peaceful countryside of the united states (which pursues war around the world, which the amish benefit from therefore by proxy)

it would be lovely to think of the amish out of geopolitical context, as a discreet example of a whole society, wouldn't it? unfortunately for you though, they don't exist out of context. they only exist in the context of the united states

put your beloved amish in the hinterlands of the caucasus mountains, or the hindu kush, or kurdistan, or somalia, and you'd seem one of two things about the amish:

  1. instant extinction

  2. fine bloodletting in the pursuit of their continued existence

but left in idyllic lancaster county, and the amish are allowed to spout their pap about being pacifists, without actually being asked to test that notion. they exist within the coccoon of the united states, which pursues its various agendas around the world, ready and willing to embrace bloodletting in the pursuit of that (for which the amish seem all to happy to vote for as well: they all vote solidly republican... some peaceniks, huh?)

it must be dandy to embrace a notion you are never actually asked to test. however, as proof of a way of thinking, i will ask a little more from you please. interesting that notion: context, isn't it?

therefore, your amish as concrete example of any functional societal ideal is pure bullshit. you need to discard the revelations about amish society that you think enlighten us about what works and what doesn't in society

likewise, you procrasti: you're like the amish

you live in an ivory tower. you have these beliefs, which you feel powerfully emotional about, but the veracity of your beliefs never needs to actually be tested, because you live in this safe, hermetically sealed coccoon of rich western life

  1. were you married to a heroin addict (sorry, forgot, that never happens pffft) you would quickly adopt antiheroin views as you see the drug turn your loved one into a zombie

  2. were you running an obscure message board like rusty, and you had a kid being born tomorrow (read his diary), and these random yahoos wanted you to do all this work for their sake, you wouldn't do shit

  3. were you actually in iraq, living under saddam, exposed to all of his bloody disappearances and tyranny, you would celebrate his removal, by anyone, for any reason

but, like the amish, in your safe little coccoon, you spout these beliefs with great passion and excitement that ONLY exist because of your safe position in life

a safety which exists only because of beliefs and acitons you do not yourself support

which just makes you retarded, pointless, loud, dumb

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm not arguing about doing nothing. (none / 1) (#150)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:26:22 PM EST

I'm arguing about how to do something right.

Is it worth adding features to K5? If so, what? It is open source after all. I certainly don't expect Rusty to do anything now, but I can still offer up suggestions.

There was a better way to handle Iraq, which I thought at the time, but didn't post here. Now I'm just pointing out that you were wrong then, and still wrong now. I am less safe because of US actions. You won't find a survey where the majority of Iraqis say they are better off now.

The Drug War and real prisons are WORSE than the so called mental prison of addiction. With a safe supply, addiction isn't even a problem. I am less safe because of this war... It makes me an enemy of the state, which I'd rather not be. I haven't been married to anyone addicted to heroin, but I have lived with them and know quite a few. Either way, they'd be better off if they could get clean, cheap supplies.

If anything, you are arguing it is best to do nothing, pro status quo, anti liberty, anti self responsibility, anti discussion, pro US torture, pro extraordinary rendition, pro Guantanamo, and you want the evil in the world to continue. Your response, at least we're not as bad China.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the western world is doomed (1.00 / 2) (#152)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:39:02 PM EST

the more there are people like you in it

you're the rotten empty useless core

you won't fight for anything, you'd rather argue about accepting the unacceptable: heroin, which every culture it has ever come in contact with recognizes it as the worst threat to freedom (yes, chemical dependency is worse than the gulag of the worst dictatorship), saddam hussein, of which there is no better example of a modern warring evil dictator in the world (yes, removing him might actually be messy... but better let him continue murdering thousands than admit getting rid of him will begin iraq's escape from tyranny, right?)

and as for your stance on k5, it's just endemic of who and what you are: don't actually do anything yourself, just whine and cry and complain until someone else fixes something

it's a critical mass thing: with enough useless empty turds like you around, who will fight for nothing, and merely rationalize the acceptance of the unacceptable, and the west will fail, and go into extinction

what will replace it?

whatever does, it won't be the likes of you. it will be whomever fights for what they believe, whatever they believe. and i can guarantee you, they won't be so accepting of heroin use my friend

but don't worry dude, i'm not going to argue with you anymore. it's not worth arguing with you: you've announced plenty of times that when push comes to shove, you will do nothing, you will merely accept

so, i will continue ridding your neighborhoods of heroin, and i will continue fighting tyrannic regimes in the world in your name. and the whole time you will bitch and moan and cry. but so what?

like you said yourself, plenty of times, you won't actually do anything

and so, in the end, you simply don't matter: a dead empty pointless husk. you leave no ideological offspring

maybe you can find a way at the end of your life to rationalize to yourself why you didn't actually fight for anything

after all, if you think long and hard enough, you can accept people like saddam hussein in your world, and you can accept heroin addiction. with acceptance of anything, even the most unconsciable things, anything is possible!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I am fighting against the status quo (none / 1) (#155)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:58:07 PM EST

This is actually harder than saying, oh, lets let all the people in Washington do as they please, our rights and lives be damned.

The WoD clearly hasn't decreased access to drugs, all you've done is made it insanely profitable to criminals. The problems of addiction are merely compounded by it. Addicts die and kill rather than just having to take it. The Swiss have a lot of research on this, look it up.

I was pro removing SH, but anti unilateral US action. Are you seriously pro Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition and US torture? Are you happy all those extra Iraqis are now dead? You have the US GWoT to thank for that.

This story is about K5, and you've lead me too far astray, I won't argue any more. 'Creating' your own website will do nothing for K5, even less than suggesting changes.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

that's right (1.66 / 3) (#156)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:04:39 PM EST

i am for fighting only the most addictive drugs and for fighting the worst dictator of modern times and therefore me myself i am a pro-washington neocon

oh wait, you are for fighting gw bush too? oh but the likes of china and russia don't want to (you know security council seats). therefore, i'll side with the likes of russia and china on this question

if you can't defeat a guy, paint him as something he isn't, right?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You support the METHODS. (none / 1) (#167)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:51:27 PM EST

I support fighting dictators, but I am for doing it with UN support, and the machinery that they can bring to bear, and which the US cannot. hint: its not technology that's the problem.

I am for helping, rather than demonising addicts. I am against criminals profiting from selling drugs, which the WoD guarantees. So I am for minimising the HARM done by addictive drugs, rather than sticking my head up my arse and proclaiming that you can legislate everyone's morality and hope that somehow demand will decrease.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the un (2.00 / 2) (#181)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:52:52 PM EST

is tied up in agendas that do not jive with yours. now what do you do

an addict wants nothing but drugs. not a family, not a relationship, not a job. help such a person have a life (howabout we prevent their creation in the first place?)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The UN is not perfect, but a better solution than (none / 1) (#193)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:29:32 AM EST

starting unilateral invasions. A better solution to the UN does not exist yet.

an addict wants nothing but drugs. not a family, not a relationship, not a job.
Not true, an addict only wants drugs before a family, relationships and jobs. Satisfy the drugs, and the rest follow. The disruption to these is not caused by the drugs, but by the requirements to obtain the drugs.

Secondly, so what? Is not wanting these things criminal? Any aspect of drug use that might lead to something criminal (child negligence) can and should be punished for the crime itself, not the possibility of the crime.

help such a person have a life
Why not just not hinder them further?

howabout we prevent their creation in the first place?
Right, change it from a criminal problem into a medical problem. Users go from being perceived as rebels to being perceived as losers with a health problem. Remove the profit incentive, so dealers don't push to the young and vulnerable.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

fucktard (1.50 / 2) (#194)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:47:32 AM EST

unilateral action is better than no action

anyone who wants drugs before a family, a relationship and a job is a selfish piece of shit that deserves nothing except institutionalization... oh, they deserve better than that? HOW ABOUT THEIR FAMILY, GIRLFRIEND, AND JOB??!!

consequences, asshole, consequences: everyone knows drug addiction turns you into a useless zombie. oh, you didn't know that? well, i didn't know driving drunk was bad, can i go home without jail now? what, you want to punish me for drunk driving? how about government provide free taxi service at every bar in the country? i mean, it's not like making drunk driving is going to stop me from drinking and driving!

fucking moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ignoramus (none / 1) (#195)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:26:01 PM EST

Iraq is proving that unilateral action is worse.

If I put anything other than family, relationships and job first in my life, am I a selfish piece of shit that deserves nothing except institutionalisation? Does the constitution of the US say that you everyone has the right to pursue family, relationships and jobs? Or does it say everyone has the right to pursue happiness? People fail to maintain these things playing WoW.

everyone knows drug addiction turns you into a useless zombie
And yet the swiss experiments are proving otherwise. Drug addiction seems conquerable once the patient is stabilised and decides for themselves to quit - at rates of over 32% for long term users. People's family situations stabilise, their health improves, and amazingly, their job prospects improve as well.

Psychosis, that can be set off by drugs like pot, LSD and mushrooms, on the other hand, seem to last forever... No family, relationships or jobs... No sense of reality, forever, period.

Driving is not a right, its inherently dangerous ton of metal that would otherwise be considered a weapon, so driving under the influence is a crime. No one has to provide anything for free. If you are not driving, so what if you are drunk? Perhaps, prohibiting alcohol would make more sense, as we know alcoholics cannot hold down family, relationships and jobs, they are also violent and tend to kill people when they get behind the wheel.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

iraq is worse than what? (2.00 / 2) (#196)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:48:09 PM EST

under saddam? controlled by al qaeda? controlled by iran?

heroin, meth, cocaine: these drugs and their derivatives have an addiction profile and inebriation profile (unlike say nicotine: no inebriation, or lsd: no addiction) that renders all of the negative effects of fighting those drugs (list them to me: i agree to every single one) less worse than the detrimental effects of those drugs themselves

as an individual, society owes you many things. but you also owe society some things to. #1: to be able to hold a job. heroin, cocaine, meth imperils and limits your ability to do that. so if you choose to take these drugs, you have broken an agreement with society about what society owes you, because you have told society i will not hold up my end of the bargain. therefore, society isn't obligated to you anymore

case closed

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

screw iraq, history will show you wrong (none / 1) (#198)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:25:31 PM EST

Heroin addicts, getting a clean constant supply, say it no longer provides an inebriating effect, just some 'warm feeling'. Within half an hour, they are apparently normal.

Orders of magnitudes more people use meth and cocaine than are addicted to them. The rates are a few percent at most, and even less when you add people who have used just a small number of times.

Why are addiction and inebriation the only important negative health effects? Psychosis isn't something that can be cured, you can't one day decide you've had enough and you'll leave it behind, so it leaves you permanently inebriated and incapable. So the detrimental effects of psychosis means that all the positives of legalising non addictive, but psychosis inducing drugs (list them to me: i agree with every one), are outweighed by the effects of those drugs themselves.

List:
  Drug prohibition encourages more addicts by:
    - making it appear cool and rebellious.
    - encouraging pushers to sell to children.
    - by encouraging addicts to push on friends.

Actually, I don't owe society that I hold down a job at all. If I am so inherently lazy, that this imperils and limits my ability to hold down a job, I am not criminal, if I pursue gambling or WoW to the point of not being able to work, I am not a criminal (look at the former's ability to destroy someone financially too), but if I pursue some plant extracts, suddenly I am a criminal, even if I hold down a job, family and relationships successfully.

At this point in my life, absolutely true, I never plan on having a tax paying job again.

There's a big difference between society being obligated, and society unnecessarily frustrating a class of people, and in the end, this only hurts society more.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

society and you (2.00 / 2) (#199)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:44:14 PM EST

your obviously blind as to the negative effects of addicts on society. it's a psychological problem i've encountered in some people, like libertarians. they are utterly blind as to the give and take between them and society and their well being. they have this ivory tower effect going on. they think of themselves as islands in ways they are not islands in reality. personally, i think it is a very deep seated selfishness, but that's besides the point: so what does society do about libertarians and people like you?

society needs to do nothing. this entire thread with you is just intellectual charity. all societies and the vast majority of individuals understand the give and take between society and them. what society owes them, what they owe society. a selfish fringe doesn't. fine. you're a small group, and frankly, you don't matter

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Addiction with alcohol is obvious to anyone. (none / 1) (#200)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:59:24 PM EST

It hurts society, and I agree... Does society not owe it to alcoholics to fight this dangerous drug? So why not prohibit it?

You exaggerate the effects of addiction, and are blind to the effects of  psychosis.

You are blind to the fact that ALL the problems of addiction are in fact the problems of prohibition.

I don't deny, that if you want to have more than mere subsistence, you should pay something back to society so that others, less fortunate, can at least subsist. So why not tax the drugs, so the users do in fact pay back to society?

People choose to work, they might choose it over eating out of rubbish bins, but its still a choice and not something that is owed. Otherwise, you are actually a communist.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

heroin addiction (1.50 / 2) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:38:42 PM EST

is way worse than alcohol, and worse than lsd

please try harder next time

or even better: just give it up dude. i think you'll find that good ol' circletimessquare has been far more charitable to you than any other bloke on this planet would be. most would be more than glassy eyed concerning you at this point (no pun intended, snicker)

different drugs deserve different attitudes from society. just the way it is mate. and for a special group: heroin, coke, meth: illegalization is superior to other attitudes

but please, go on with your bad self. i don't need to convince you. society understands what you don't, out of your colossal self-centeredness

"At this point in my life, absolutely true, I never plan on having a tax paying job again"

good for you. why the hell you still think society owes you anything is beyond me

"There's a big difference between society being obligated, and society unnecessarily frustrating a class of people, and in the end, this only hurts society more."

that's right, because heroin addicts are fine upstanding citizens

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh man, why do i bother?

don't worry man, i know your response already: if society would just give heroin addicts free clean heroin and housing and counseling and warm sympathy, they will all wake up every morning invigorated and loving and refreshed and go out there and live wonderful decent committed giving engaged lives

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh man, it's fucking hilarious

dude: heroin addiction is an act of slow motion suicide. no one actually uses heroin unless they are trying to kill pain. for most of them, it is the very pain of life itself that they use heroin

someone selfish like you: this is a source of pain, very narcissistic people are often times in psychological pain. selfishness kills your ability to enjoy thre company of others, and society. heroin helps in that inward isolation the narcissistic, to bring a warm glow to what is otherwise bleak and empty psychologically (because you ar enot enganged, because you are selfish)

that means this class of people is automatically beyond being productive members of society, even if there was heroin for them all the time for free

but the big difference between you and i is, i understand that heroin does not kill the pain, it merely provides relief from it. then, the relief wears off, the pain returns. and you need more and more: a game of diminishing returns, tha tonly ends in chemical dependency, and no real cure for the psychological pain

heroin addiction isn't a cure for the pain that drives people to use it. it's a stalling mechanism. the real solution to the pain in their lives is facing something down that is very painful. and some of them can't ever do that, psychologically maladapted as they are, selfish as they are, utterly walled off from society, and having beneficial social contact with others. but even such a hopeless person still deserves to be prevented from the completel sublimation of self to chemical dependency, the ultimate end point of the selfish, self-absorbed narcissist who chooses chemistry over society: zombification. the suicide of the self. the end point of heroin dependency by the narcissist is complete destruciton of the self. which is ironic in a way

simple human weakness prevents the self-absorbed drug addict from ever coming to grips with a real solution to their pain: positive social investment. they don' tknow how anymore. they've lost those skills./ all that is left on the empty plain of ther pain ridden empty lives is the escape hatch of heroin.

but it's not like heroin is going to help. it just delays the inevitable. and all the while, they are no better for not facing that psychological pain. only addicted. to a drug. and more lost as to a way out. and compounded with new pains. and even weaker to surmount their issues. it's vampirisim, it's a black hole, it's quick sand: stuck, and everything you do makes you more stuck. the self slipping away

heroin is a dead end. slow motion suicide. nothing ever good comes out of it. nothing. ever

and society, by making it illegal, says that to people, by preventing them from going down a dead end in the first place, no matter how terrible their psychic pain, heroin only makes it worse. of course we are talking about broken souls in the first place. they don't listen to society to begin with. but it's not like society HELPING them make things worse for themselves is going to improve their life. society's BEST course of action is to take a hard line against heroin, all of the time: from the person who never tried heroin, to the deeply addicted: no more heroin for you

and of course the self-absorbed narcissists who turn to heroin in the firs tplace aren't going to listen to society and what society says is right. in their maladptivity, this actually drives many of them CLOSER to trying heroin: they reflexively do what society tells them not to do

but the folly of people like you is that changing society's behavior for the helpless maladapted souls somehow helps them. no, nothing helps them. they are the bottom of the bucket. the unsaveable drek

then there is a new goal: saving society from the zombies. from the inevitable end game of those who sublimate their very self to chemical dependency: lock the fuckers up, prevent them from doing to themselves what nothing else will prevent them from doing

you can't help someone who won't help themselves. you can't give freedom to someone who chooses to remove their freedom by sublimating their identity to a chemical addiction. you can't give life to someone who chooses slow motion suicide and zombification

so, for this bottom of the bucket drek, forcing them, agains ttheir will, forcibly protecting them from their own malformed selves, this approach is more loving and caring, more freeing and life giving, than givign them the free reigns to kill themselves: giving them free access to heroin. the other approach is like "i see you want to commit suicide in slow motion. here, let me help you"

(smirk)

and i know what you are saying: i'm describing a small fringe of heroin users

no i'm not. i'm describing anyone who turns to heroin in the first place. the group that isn't at this bottom of the bucket is nonetheless beginning the circle of the bowl, no matter how imperceptible. you don't flirt with chemcial dependency and claim freedom from it. it sucks you in, and with every usage your willpower is sublimated more to simple biochemistry, until you are drowning

furthermore, anyone psychologically well-adjusted enough never turns to it in the first place: they understand the folly of choosing this chemical vampirism over finding escape from their pain in social prusuits, other pursuits, nonchemical pursuits

well, not entirely true: in a society that doesn't act hostile towards drugs, some otherwise well-adjusted souls get exposed tot he sucking force of chemical dependency when they otherwise wouldn't be. and then you create zombies out of what would otherwise have been normal psychologically well-adjusted souls

so society must be hostile towards the most inebriating and addicitng chemicals out there: to show these drugs what they are: the enemy of society itself. the replacement of joy in others with joy in chemistry

in short, society fights drug addiciton because drug addiciton is the psychological antithesis of society. society fights for its right to live, because anythign with a life force fights for life. those who have ceased fighting to live get sucked into the morass. the morass of drug addiciton

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Pursuit of happiness is guaranteed. (none / 1) (#206)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:06:06 PM EST

Not happiness itself.

For many people the drugs you mention have increased their happiness without resulting in the catastrophes you suggest.

Your argument is that drugs lead to health issues that lead to societal issues.

And that is wrong because, firstly, you rightly state that it is quite likely that the people who use the drugs already have the health issues, so you are saying punish those people for having that health issue, what's next, punish anyone with mental problems, punish cancer patients?

Secondly, the health issue only leads to the societal issues in the presence of a WoD.

Thirdly, other drugs you like to use lead to another set of health issues that also result in the same societal issues even outside the presence of the WoD.

Fourthly, the societal issues themselves are not illegal in themselves anyway.

"There's a big difference between society being obligated, and society unnecessarily frustrating a class of people, and in the end, this only hurts society more."

that's right, because heroin addicts are fine upstanding citizens
Yes, society is hurt, because would be upstanding citizens must turn to crime because of the WoD.

"At this point in my life, absolutely true, I never plan on having a tax paying job again"

good for you. why the hell you still think society owes you anything is beyond me
I ask nothing of society, and yet I DO provide at least exactly as it requires me - why do you think it owes you anything? You have been a felonious criminal drug user after all, right? You break societies laws, expect its benefits, and still want others punished for making very similar decisions to you. You simply rationalise your actions because you only broke the law in one circumstance and not another.

in a society that doesn't act hostile towards drugs, some otherwise well-adjusted souls get exposed
And yet you (ok, skip well-adjusted for argument sake) were exposed to a set of drugs that are just as illegal. It didn't stop you, not because you thought rationally about it, but because those were the drugs you were exposed to by people you knew and trusted. Why do you think cocaine/meth/heroin users are different?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you always paint this rosy picture of drug use (1.50 / 2) (#207)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:29:12 PM EST

when the stupidest fool knows what is being risked here

you should be a used car salesman. you have the eagerness. the shit eating grin as you try to describe a piece of junk as something wonderful, the craven self-interest. you got it down dude

your words in sum total are: attempting to describe a fundamental impediment to living your life as an enabler to living your life. incredible

look: i've seen, with my two eyes, all of the bullshit rationalizations, the lies, the narcissism, the selfishness that leads someone to zombify themselves

dude, i know the truth of drug use. i'm not joe schoe "drugs are bad because gw bush told me so"

i'm a living witness to the human follies that leads to addiction, and their ultimate end result

you can recite 10,000 more words. it's just spin on the same shit. shit i've witnessed. i know what is at the end of what you describe in terms of ruined lives

all i hear from you is more of the same desperate empty rationalizations i have heard a thousand times before in a thousand different ways. and i know what they really are: the politics of personal destruction

the sum total of your words is to simply solidify in my mind your selfishness, your self-absorportion, your narcissism

i don't look at you as someone who is enlightening me about drug use. i look at you and i see what i've seen a thousand times before in terms of lies people tell themselves

not because of nancy reagan. but because of my own life experience

do you know who i am? i am a witness. i am the bearer of truth. i am exposure to people lying to themselves about the monkey on their back past the point of return until they are craven empty shells of their formal self

do you know what powers me in my argument with you?

reality. and caring for these people who have so self-destructed

and in their name, in the folly of what they have done to themselves in their error, i fight you, you who wish to fool us with the same old tired story, tale as old as time, your arrogant dismissal of simple facts of life

this time, about the risk of using highly addicitve chemical substances, and exactly WHO and WHAT part of the human mind that folly appeals to and why, and exactly WHERE that folly leads to, inevitably, in the end

and there is nothing to do, on this question of highly addicitve substances, except to fight a war with it, forever

because acceptance of it, is worse for humanity than the war is


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And yet you are living proof that WoD doesn't stop (none / 0) (#209)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:48:57 PM EST

anyone from taking illegal drugs. Never has and never will.

You rationalise your decision post fact, but when you were offered that first joint, that first tab of LSD, that first mushroom, you took it without considering its long term effects. You didn't even really know what they were. You couldn't give two shits that you could have become just another mental patient.

If it was cocaine at that party or if people were smoking opium, 10 to 1 on you would have taken it. You may have even become the very addict you so desperately despise, and then again, you most likely would not have.

I have no monkey on my back, but for the grace of God go I, and you too, if you thought about it.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you've just made my argument (none / 1) (#210)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:07:15 PM EST

let me be as succinct as possible:

there will always be people who will take drugs. always and forever

anything i do to fight drug use will never reverse that fact. you seem to think that you have a point to make to me here. you don't. i understand that point perfectly well, and always have, in all of my argument with you. i am not an idealist. perhaps you are. perhaps you honestly believe that a more permissive attitude towards deathly addictive drugs will mean less negative effects on society. pfffffffft LAFF

it's kind of like "the war on household filth". even an empty house collects dust. you don't fight the war on household filth once, and then forever more your house is clean. no. the accumulation of filth means that fighting household garbage is something you will always be doing. it's a MAINTENANCE effort. the "war on garbage" will go on forever, it will never end. and when you realize that you don't say: "taking out the garbage every day is filling up landfills around this country. this is a negative effect since landfills are toxic waste dumps. therefore, i'm not going to take the garbage out of my house anymore, ebcause of this negative effect"

uh

the negative effect of NOT taking out your trash is WORSE. you CHOOSE between two negative effects: which is LESS worse

and so it is with the war on drugs. on some drugs: alcohol, marijuana, etc.: the negative effects of the war is worse than the negative effects of the drugs! the lessons of prohibition

but for OTHER drugs (they're not all the same in addiction and inebriation darling, perhaps you've noticed (snicker)) the negative effects of the DRUGS is worse than the negative effects of the war... on the individual AND the society

it's a choice between two negative effects

it comes down to this:

  1. i recognize and accept every single negative effect of the war on drugs you have listed, and some you haven't

  2. but you, you seem to have this blissful avoidance or ignorance of the negative effects of drugs

...interesting that little contrast between our arguments, isn't it? ;-)

"If it was cocaine at that party or if people were smoking opium, 10 to 1 on you would have taken it. You may have even become the very addict you so desperately despise, and then again, you most likely would not have."

and that's the whole fucking point, right there, in a nutshell:

for alcohol, marijuana at that party, the risk is acceptable. for meth, cocaine, heroin, the risk is unacceptable

DIFFERENT. FUCKING. CHEMICALS

DIFFERENT. FUCKING. EFFECTS

DIFFERENT. FUCKING. LAWS

comprende moron?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

that's the whole fucking point, right there, (none / 0) (#213)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:59:20 PM EST

in a nutshell:
Drugs, just as illegal at a party, and you took them. You took them BECAUSE they were illegal and therefore exciting.

Now, put yourself back there, and all the drugs you want legal are as legal and passée as alcohol.

What drugs are at the party now, which ones do you take? The most dangerous drugs.

Legalising your drugs, and continuing with the same strategy with the others would only INCREASE the usage of the most dangerous drugs.

Therefore, you cannot simply legalise your drugs, without risking more people taking more dangerous drugs.

I leave you with this:

The Swiss Medical Prescription of Narcotics Programme (PROVE)
This landmark study clearly demonstrates how simple harm reduction succeeds in producing all the goals our massive drug war is failing to produce. Moreover, the drug war is actually amplifying those problems it attempts to eradicate. The PROVE experiment was so successful that the Swiss people voted 70-30 in a country-wide referendum to continue and expand it. Most Americans don't know about these results because the study has been largely suppressed and ignored by the U.S. media, addictionologists, and pro-drug war government administrators. Besides its clear reduction in all societal problems such as addiction related crime, spread of disease, violence, homelessness, and unemployment, thought to be caused by addiction, it demonstrates that these problems are, on the other hand, due to its prohibition. Additionally, it increased life expectancy, recovery rates, family stability, and productivity of addicts, even those not in recovery.

Your argument entirely debunked.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

that's fascinating (none / 1) (#214)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:24:43 PM EST

so that's why no one abuses alcohol anymore, because alcohol is accepted. that's a fascinating fact

!?

you're fucking deluded

and please don't bring up that swiss bullshit. remember, my thesis is that if you tolerate drugs, there are more drug users. and if you are not tolerant to drug use, drug use fades. it never goes away completely, but the pressure you exert, the more you fight it, the more it goes away

you seem obsessed with how we treat existing drug addicts. they're already a lost cause. how a drug addict is treated or not treated is a secondary concern. give drug addicts a constant clean drug supply and cushy apartments and a monthly stipend, or lock them up in a hell hole prison and throw away the records they even exist. either way: THAT ARGUMENT DOESN'T MATTER

the PRIMARY concern is the prevention of creating drug users in the first place!

do you understand that difference?

so according to me, if you have a society that tolerates drug use, you create more addicts, and therefore more suffering. meanwhile, you have another society that comes down on drug offenses hard, not tolerating drug use. that creates suffering too. but LESS suffering over all because you have LESS addicts overall

get it?

so the swiss are more tolerant than the usa towards drug use. ok. is my thesis right?

pfffffffffffffffffft

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I thought you thought alcohol abuse is acceptable (none / 0) (#216)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:38:06 PM EST

and that we should tolerate it, otherwise please tell me why not prohibit alcohol?

the PRIMARY concern is the prevention of creating drug users in the first place!
Which your plan doesn't do. In fact, your plan would make more users, as I pointed out, and accepting the WoD as it is today is the preferable to your changes if that was the primary concern.

In fact, my PRIMARY concern is for the health and economic well-being of society overall. If overall, drug addicts are healthier, have more stable relationships and family, have better economic prospects and commit less crime, if overall addiction rates don't increase significantly, and finally dealers are out of business, then my primary goals are achieved.

Now, while it cannot be proven that the swiss model decreases incidence of heroin use, it appears that heroin use did not increase, while on the other hand, heroin use continued to increased in other countries not following the model,
as this study shows, along with others you might care to search for.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

darling (none / 1) (#218)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:49:29 PM EST

more exposure to highly addictive drugs results in more addicts

how? why? gee, i dunno, it's something to do with that word "addictive", but i can't quite put my finger on it... i wonder what that magical concept is?

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

More exposure is what your plan would create (none / 0) (#220)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 01:04:12 AM EST

You have issues with the Lancet? Not enough of a reliable source for you I guess. Maybe you need something from a right wing anti drug propaganda website to prove your case.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i have nothing against lancet (none / 0) (#224)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:11:56 AM EST

i have everything against propaganda

propaganda, darling, has nothing to do with lies. it has to do with half-truths. completely true facts, but taken outside of a larger context, that are used to "prove" something when all they "prove" is that the user of those facts (that's you darling) can't keep track of all of the relevant variables in his head at the same time

thus a half-truth, rather than the whole truth. thus, propaganda

here's an example:

  1. "studies have proven that homeowners with guns are robbed less than homeowners without guns" (doesn't matter if it's a real study or not, i'm illustrating how propaganda works)

  2. "therefore, everyone has a right to a machine gun" (huh? how did point 1 lead to point 2?)

now it's your turn:

  1. lancet says (insert whatever it is the lancet says)

  2. therefore (my personal agenda is completely validated, completely and utterly peripheral to whatever the lancet study is)

and of course, the coup de grace:

3. if you don't accept point 2, then you must have a problem accepting the cold facts of point 1. therefore, i win the argument

no darling, all you win is a wonderful trip on your own propaganda bus. you haven't convinced me of anything, and you haven't actually proven your agenda to be correct

i hope this little lesson in how propaganda works in your mind has been enlightening for you

i wish you great luck and great success in the future in your ability to keep ALL OF THE CONCEPTS IN PLAY AT THE SAME TIME IN YOUR HEAD


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Explain how the Lancet study doesn't say exactly (none / 0) (#226)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:54:35 AM EST

what I have been telling you, and how it doesn't invalidate your statements.

The topic of the study is INCREASE IN HEROIN USE during the SWISS EXPERIMENTS.

ITS THE ACTUAL TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION. In what way can that be peripheral in your view?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

we have seem to have a problem then (none / 0) (#227)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:59:25 AM EST

as i sent you link showing switzerland with a huge drug-crime problem. how's that possible in your utopia darling? pfffft

so what's the cure for the impasse? much like arguments about gun control, every asshole can pull out 20 different studies and fact to bolster his opinion. such that, in the end, you begin to wonder about the studies themselves. because of course, study paper authors are completely impartial observers without an agenda of their own (rolls eyes)

and in fact, one does find a funny problem with your study and your use of it in this argument thread, quoting from the first sentence of the first page of the studies conclusions: "The harm reduction policy of Switzerland and its emphasis on the medicalisation of the heroin problem seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive to young people."

wait a second...

i thought drug use was ok? isn't that your thesis?

see, the problem with you procrasti, much like the last time i argued with you, is that your ultimate attitude towards drug use seems to morph over the progression of the argument. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and simply conclude you haven't applied a full analysis to your point of view and the studies you use to bolster your pov (looking for disparities between what you want to prove and what is actually proven: propaganda)

your argument with me begins with there being nothing wrong with heroin use: addiction rates are low, people can keep a job as a user, etc. but then it morphs. into something like the swiss situation, where heroin use is still seen as a horrible debilitating thing, but with a lot of governmental support, users can limp along as the half-alive zombies they are, and people can be prevented from taking it up

but why would preventing youth from seeing heroin as a good thing be the whole point if drug use is ok!?

please, darling, note that: the ultimate point of the swiss experiment is STILL that heroin use is a BAD THING

in other words, over the course of your argument, your DESIRED AGENDA SEEMS TO CHANGE

so i'm asking you to choose now, AND STICK WITH A POINT OF VIEW, so we can apply some rigor to your constantly changing point of view, so i'm not arguing against procrasti version #1 in one comment, and then arguing with procrasti version #2 in another comment:

  1. the ideal is that society accepts and supports drug addicts (the utopian procrasti). the ultimate belief here being: drug use is ACCEPTABLE in society. the war on drugs must end

  2. the ideal is that society rids itself of drug addicts as much as possible (the war on drugs needs a new approach procrasti). the ultimate belief here being: drug use is NOT ACCEPTABLE in society. the war on drugs should continue, but with new tactics

the point being, and maybe you don't understand this, is that the swiss method is merely a novel way to achieve the same goal that nancy reagan wants. nancy reagan's approach is dumb and brutal. the swiss model is smart and sophisticated

but both the neocons drug warriors in the usa and the laissez faire swiss want the same thing: LESS DRUG USE. BECAUSE DRUG USE IS BAD

and yet, those smart and sophisticate laissez faire swiss: higher rate of drug crimes than countries that take a more brutal approach. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE????!!!! maybe because, as i've said all along, highly addictive drugs are a pandora's box: a more tolerant approach to them simply leads to more drug use. such that a brutal approach to drug use is SUPERIOR when fighting drug use. but how can this be?

maybe because of the essential misunderstanding you have about drug use: that it is a positive thing. no, darling, HARD DRUG USE ITSELF IS A BRUTAL THING. it is brutal to your body, your life, your soul. it is violence against the self. it is slow motion suicide. and how does one fight brutality? with state sponsored brutality, like iwth any violence: prison time, punishment. not hand outs, not pats ont he back, not support

it all comes down to an essential understanding of the philosophical nature of drug use: why someone turns to drugs. and you fail it procrasti (assuming i am talking to procrasti version #1, which is what you introduced yourself as... perhaps you've morphed into version #2 by now)

it's a subtle point. but it means everything, and i think you miss it. because you come at me with this whole: drug use is fine, it should be a tolerated mode of a normal society

no, it isn't. but that's besides the point, so now i'm asking you to pick #1 or #2 above, because then all sorts of magical pieces begin to fall in place about this entire argument i'm having with you

now pick one: #1, or #2. and stick with it. because by forcing you to STICK WITH A POINT OF VIEW, it brings some interesting contrasts between your earlier arguments in this thread and the previous fuckknob thread, and the example of the swiss


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

My argument with you has always been that heroin (none / 0) (#228)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:49:35 AM EST

should be regulated and provided by government as a health care measure, to remove profits from dealers and to overcome other problems of the WoD.

A few arguments we have had along the way show that the dangers of heroin addiction are overrated, as the Rat Park studies clearly showed, you remember these, right?

Another argument is that heroin addicts are not in fact zombies unable to maintain jobs, families, relationships, etc. This is another thing that the Swiss experiment has shown. That all these things suddenly improve when addicts have the access to the drug.

Finally, the drug problems of Switzerland were so bad that the new approach was taken. Switzerland doesn't have a drug problem because of the new approach, it has the new approach because of the drug problem and it appears to be helping. Do you have a problem with causation?

I have ALWAYS argued for HARM REDUCTION methods (do you know how many times I have used those words???) to managing the problem. To which you reply --- ZOMBIES BRAINS ZOMBIES RETARD ADDICTS HEROIN ZOMBIES BRAINS.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i asked you to pick #1, or #2 (none / 0) (#230)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:11:38 AM EST

you didn't pick. and so you think you get to continue arguing at me from two different points of view, depending upon your mood. i'd like to argue with one person and one point of view please. i can't argue against two people at the same time with a different set of beliefs, one substituting for the other at random intervals and in midthought

no, you don't get to do that anymore darling. it's intellectually dishonest. the pap you wrote above is a nice politician's attempt to straddles the fence between two different positions. you are avoiding

pick:

  1. the ideal is that society accepts and supports drug addicts (the utopian procrasti). the ultimate belief here being: drug use is ACCEPTABLE in society. the war on drugs must end

  2. the ideal is that society rids itself of drug addicts as much as possible (the war on drugs needs a new approach procrasti). the ultimate belief here being: drug use is NOT ACCEPTABLE in society. the war on drugs should continue, but with new tactics

which ideal darling? what is the GOAL of your arguments. WHICH future do you seek? or to put it another way: is drug use essentially GOOD (#1), or is drug use essentially BAD (#2). you seem to think that question can remain fluid on this topic. no, it can't. you need to nail yourself down, or it renders all of your arguments pointless, as you yourself don't even know what you want out of society

and then, when you have made your choice, we will be able to drive a stake of logic into your statements, and destroy your idiocy

but i actually don't think i have to get that far. simply forcing you to choose between those two incompatible positions that you nonetheless straddle in your words should be enough to make your brain asplode. why?

because i don't think you've ever actually examined that contrast before. because you think the "proof" you turn to to support your worldview doesn't actually support your worldview. ie: propaganda

oh sorry i almost forgot:
ZOMBIES BRAINS ZOMBIES RETARD ADDICTS HEROIN ZOMBIES BRAINS


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

HARM REDUCTION (none / 0) (#231)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:50:23 AM EST

Its neither 1 or 2...

Despite drugs being essentially BAD, society must accept and support drug users (on a legal, not social level). Legalise, Regulate and Educate.

It supports a War on the Supply of Drugs, by removing the market from suppliers... but not a War (via enforcement) on the Demand for Drugs, which can never be won, no matter what, which only creates crime and all the damage you see done by and to hard core addicts.

Please, read up on harm reduction and write the actual option it represents if you want me to choose a non false dichotomy. Show me you understand what it is first.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

then i have won the argument, and i thank you (none / 0) (#232)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:01:59 PM EST

for being big enough to pick one or the other

i can pin you down in a number of spots in our previous vainglorious thread where you have indicated that heroin use is essentially harmless, which is what stoked my hatred for you

but now that you have switched to seeing things my way, i can consider this thread over and done with, with me being the victor, by me having nailing you down on this point: you choose #2

the ideal is that society rids itself of drug addicts as much as possible (the war on drugs needs a new approach procrasti). the ultimate belief here being: drug use is NOT ACCEPTABLE in society. the war on drugs should continue, but with new tactics

now the NEXT argument that would occur between us is about tactics, which i'm certain we don't agree on. but i don't care about that argument. all i ever cared about is a scorched earth policy on fuckknobs who wish to evangelize the essential harmlessness of hard drug use

that war having been fought and won by me here, then i am done with you, and i thank you for being a big enough man by coming around to common sense on the essential evil of hard drugs and the need for them to be fought by society forever


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And I have won, because all I have ever cared (none / 0) (#233)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:21:41 PM EST

about was proving you wrong that ALL DRUG USERS must be destroyed at whatever cost.

I believe pot, mushrooms and LSD to be ESSENTIALLY BAD, or do you think these are GOOD for society and to be ENCOURAGED?

So, now you agree that anyone should be free to decide for themselves what to do with their own body, despite it not necessarily being GOOD, you can go.

And none of the drugs you talk about are as addictive as you were lead to think, Rat Park,

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

"ALL DRUG USERS must be destroyed" !? (none / 0) (#234)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:32:46 PM EST

uh... where did i say that?

i can pin you down in a number of places where you assert heroin use is accceptable

please, by all means i invite you to prove i actually ever said, or meant "ALL DRUG USERS must be destroyed at whatever cost"

your retarded hysterical prejudices are showing darling

you've been arguing with a figment of your imagination: you apparently think i am a spokesman for the nation of saudi arabia

"So, now you agree that anyone should be free to decide for themselves what to do with their own body, despite it not necessarily being GOOD, you can go."

(snicker)

oops. you fail. that belief is #1 darling

the ideal is that society accepts and supports drug addicts (the utopian procrasti). the ultimate belief here being: drug use is ACCEPTABLE in society. the war on drugs must end

which means it contradicts belief #2, which you seemed to be asserting in your previous post

*sigh*

poor procrasti, can't keep a logical coherent pov

here dalring, let me help you out: nope. you have no right to use heroin. THE SWISS BELIEVE THAT DARLING, THEIR TACTICS ARE DIFFERENT DARLING. in your previosu post, you agree with me. but now... but now we're back to you being two different people depending upon what suits at the moment. your pov is logically inconsistent, which means you have no valid pov at all. you're incoherent

"And none of the drugs you talk about are as addictive as you were lead to think, Rat Park,"

we've been over rat park darling. shall i bitch slap you some more over how you misinterpret it? it's written record what i said before, but i'll say it again, i'm a committed internet troll, and it is my fervent evangelical desire to stamp out reatrded interpretations of drug use like you seem to be adopting again

such a shame, shifty loser

your last two sentences are pov #1. and your previous post seemed to be a fervent #2

you don't even understand the topic you obviously care about so much

(snicker)

poor incoherent retard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i'm a committed internet troll (none / 0) (#236)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:21:35 AM EST

well, on that point, you win.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i also win on another point (none / 0) (#237)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:56:16 AM EST

the point being: heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine must remain illegal forever, and fought forever (nevermind the tactics)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Right, if you are right (none / 0) (#238)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:42:04 AM EST

Then please explain that Alcohol and Nicotine are ESSENTIALLY GOOD. Please explain how psychosis causing drugs are ESSENTIALLY GOOD.

They are not GOOD, they are BAD, but they are not worth fighting for.

Being ESSENTIALLY BAD does not make them, A) As bad as you claim, and B) worth harming drug users and society over.

Therefore, Although they are essentially bad, the drug war must end.

The Swiss, might not allow all out drug use, yet, but the Swiss experiments prove that giving access to heroin, does not increase heroin usage. Which was your point.

There is no point arguing with you over this, because truth is of no importance to a troll like you.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the truth means everything to me (none / 0) (#239)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:10:06 AM EST

who has seen what these drugs you dismiss as tonic water does to real human lives with his own eyes. it is the memory of their vitality destroyed by these drugs that drives me against you

and yes, nicotine, heroin, alcohol, lsd, meth: it's all the same right?

i mean, we ought to treat radically different substances with radically different effects on the human body the same, right?

i mean, it's pure genius

i'm obviously some sort of weirdo to consider ridiculous concepts like ease of inebriation and addictiveness in whether they should be legal or not

treat all drugs the same because they all do the same thing right? flip that observation and one wonders why you aren't content with nicotine instead of heroin?

oh but right, it's not my right to dictate what people do to their own bodies

because as we all know, people take drugs in a vacuum of any consequences. i mean, if someone gets addicted to a drug like heroin (oh! i'm sorry! never happens!) they can still take care of themselve,s their job, their family, their relationships, just fine

so it's silly for me to shove my morals down other people's throats, because their private drug use doesn't effect me at all, duh!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Don't talk to me about levels here (none / 0) (#240)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:20:30 AM EST

Heroin is bad, but street heroin is a million times worse.

Now, tell me that Nicotine, Alcohol and Psychosis causing drugs are ESSENTIALLY GOOD. If you can't, all that #1 OR #2 crap is wrong.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

heorin is a chemical darling (none / 0) (#241)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:22:31 AM EST

it is the same whatever the source. the same characteristics

for example, one notable aspect of heroin is that the effective dose and the lethal dose are close together. such that improper usage invites death

but of course, the solution to that is the government provide free, medically backed heroin dosing centers nationwide

of course, it makes perfect sense

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You gave up on arguing BAD ==> prohibit (none / 0) (#242)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:25:07 PM EST

because that is exactly the logic used for alcohol. You would be saying that alcohol causes blindness.

effective dose and the lethal dose are close together
Right, street heroin always comes unadulterated and in correct measurable doses. People don't buy heroin at 10% purity one day and 95% the next. Street heroin is administered under medical supervision. There are no other poisons added to street heroin.

Same drug, right?

I never said free.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

darling (none / 0) (#243)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:57:06 PM EST

i can basejump

i could go rock climbing

i could balance on a tightrope

i could run around the city doing parkour

etc.

they all involve pitting me against risk of death by gravity

you can appreciate that, can't you? can you appreciate that the risk is of DIFFERENT FUCKING DEGREES

so if i say you're a fucking moron for trying to climb mount everest without oxygen, it's appropriate for you to reply "hey, how come you have no problem when people sky diving? same thing!"

wtf?! uh... no? different risks? so different risks of death evaluate out to different levels of social acceptance/ legality?

i know, that's a pretty wacky concept for you huh

so according to you, whether i puddle jump with my bike or jump off an apartment building doing parkour, same fucking thing

thank you, genius of procrasti!

(snicker)

but then you say: it's a free world, who are you to say the guy can't do parkour you instrusive moralizing asshole?

actually, i accept that some morons will still parkour. i'm never going to stop it. BUT i have a problem with the parkour dude expecting me to support him the rest of his life if he breaks his neck AND some other asshole saying that since the moron is going to risk life and limb no matter what, then the government should provide him with parkour shoes!

whu?!

are you fucking for real?!

if you PLAY WITH FIRE, you COULD GET BURNED. and it is not my job to buy you an ASBESTOS SUIT. it is my job to tell you NOT TO PLAY WITH FIRE, and if you still do, then YOU RISKED YOUR LIFE, YOU SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES

it is NOT my society's responsibility to take care of people who DISREGARD THE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES

do not expect ME and SOCIETY to be there for you WHEN YOU FUCK UP. rather, FUCKING TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF by not risking exposure to the hardcore drugs with a proven track record TO FUCK YOU UP

personal. fucking. responsibility. motherfucker. without it, society functions at the lowest level of it's most irresponsible members

let us recall the utopia of switzerland

isn't that crazy? if stupid shit is tolerated, more people do stupid shit, and bad shit happens

what a really mind-altering insight there huh?

not that people shouldn't do stupid shit, doing stupid shit is fun. but there is stupid shit like jumping off a cliff into a lake, and jumping off a cliff into a tree

oh i'm sorry, according to the risk assessment abilities of procrasti THAT'S THE SAME THING

teehee ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You would outlaw parkour now? (none / 0) (#244)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:10:13 PM EST

Jump against a wall, do a flip, go to jail.

Of course, insurance companies could be free to decide on increasing premiums for someone like that, but seriously, send them to jail?

Obviously, if you think people who perform parkour should go to jail, then you have absolutely no ability to think rationally about these things and my intellectual charity is wasted on you.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

well let's flip this (none / 0) (#245)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:13:54 PM EST

no matter what you do, people will hangglide

therefore, the government should buy people hanggliders?

as for me outlawing parkour, you didn't read what i already fucking said in the last post, so check yourself, and read before you open your ignorant twat mouth


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I never said the government should give away the (none / 0) (#246)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:20:00 PM EST

heroin. I said it should be supplied at cost + taxes. Undercutting dealers and addicts who become dealers and push it on others.

Yet, if you applied the same standard you apply to parkour as you have to heroin, you would do anything to stop more people taking it up, ie, you would jail them.

You are saying, lock up anyone who supplies parkour shoes and practices it.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

parkour is a poor analogy (none / 0) (#247)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:34:16 PM EST

better one

see why?

but even more importantly, it puts other people in danger. are you going to say to me flirting with addiction in the form of HEROIN is different?, for chirssake (oh i'm sorry, i'm talking to someone who runs counter to the experience of all cultures and thousands of years experience about the relative addictiveness of heroin to something like alcohol)

furthermore: you wouldn't give it away for free?

hey, i thought i WAS the intrusive moralizing asshole ;-P

HOW DARE YOU IMPART SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSISM TO THE AVAILABILITY OF A HARMLESS VITAL COMPONENT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. YOU INTRUSIVE MORALIZING ASSHOLE

or another one: do you provide meth? no?

METH SHOULD HAVE THE SAME LEGAL BASIS AS HEROIN! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU YOU INTRUSIVE MORALIZING ASSHOLE! WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE THEY CAN'T TAKE METH IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME YOU NEOCON BASTARD! YOU ACCEPT HEORIN RIGHT? YOU HYPOCRITICAL CONTROLLING SHREW

see? it never ends: you have to draw the line somewhere, and whereever you draw the line, there's some whining irresponsible prick on the other side of the line calling you an intrusive moralizing asshole, just because you expect the slightest bit of self-respect for them

no, procrasti: cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine: illegal, forever

that there will also forever more be people with no self-respect does not mean society has to stoop to their level

and that really is about it


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Base jumping directly puts others at risk (none / 0) (#248)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:50:44 PM EST

When you miss, you land on other people. That makes sense. It wouldn't make sense to outlaw base jumping off of Trango Towers, but base jumping of Empire State should be.

Your argument about parkour was the harm people do to themselves. Do you think Trango Towers jumping should be illegal?

Being addicted to heroin does not put others directly at risk, unless you have to go out and kill people to get it... ie, heroin only risks other peoples lives directly under the WoD.

As for your classism comment, you obviously don't realise the mark-up on it under the WoD. Prove otherwise.

I'll get to the other drugs after we form some agreement on heroin. I can counter these too, but lets not stray.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#249)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:04:37 PM EST

"Being addicted to heroin does not put others directly at risk, unless you have to go out and kill people to get it"

so you have this chemical dependency, and you have no money. under YOUR system, this person would kill someone to get what he needs, and it's society's fault. so you're a moralizing intrusive asshole for expecitn money in exchange for this vital important need

see how this bullshit works?

why does government owe you ANYTHING?

why do you think society owes you?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Would you outlaw base jumping? (none / 0) (#250)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:51:43 PM EST

Please, you came up with subject, then dropped it again.

Can you tell me the markup on heroin?

Where is this OWING crap you come up with?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you got me, you win (none / 0) (#254)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:34:48 AM EST

i have been eteranlly humbled and proven miserably wrong by you

in my ability to choose good analogies

however, i'm still right about drugs

yes, let's talk about a governmentally regulated system where anyone can get properly dosed pure heroin at a fair price, as they need it... and which there is no abuse

people who use drugs risk their ability to take care of themselves, to be capable, aware human beings. they think society owes them a safety net for irresponsible behavior. it doesn't


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Who said there would be no abuse? (none / 0) (#255)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:54:37 AM EST

Anyone is an overstatement, from what I read, you need to fit a certain profile to obtain OC, and no one will prescribe it for OC dependence anyway, let alone 'recreational' uses.

trustworthy data on the actual incidence of "Oxy abuse" have been difficult to establish.

people who use drugs risk their ability to take care of themselves, to be capable, aware human beings. they think society owes them a safety net for irresponsible behavior. it doesn't
And this is different to base jumpers somehow? Or ANY other physically risky behaviour? Different to psychosis inducing drug users, such as yourself?

Please tell me about the mark-up on heroin - if you care to understand how obtaining the required funds is what actually risks everything for the drug user, unless you just want to sidestep the issue.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

sidestep shmidestep (none / 0) (#256)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:56:36 AM EST

the economics aren't the issue. whether free or $300 a microgram, you miss the point. or rather, you've revealed the difference in our approaches:

you: harm reduction
me: addict reduction

you flagrantly disregard how your approach increases the number of addicts. perhaps because you think making the addict's life easier is somehow a worthier goal than whether or not more addicts are created in the first place

i view addiction itself as suffering. so harm reduction to me is a logical impossibility once you are using heroin: you are addicted, so you suffer. worse than if you weren't addicted. so actually, in a way, my perspective is a superior harm reduction philosophy to yours

it all boils down to whether or not you view being addicted as harmful in itself. or if you believe once addicted, you can somehow reduce harm, which for me is a logical impossibility

therefore, the ultimate harm reduction philosophy is the philosophy that results in the fewest addicts created

which means my approach is a superior harm reduction approach than yours. because yours is founded a poor understanding of the actual nature of heroin use, perhaps stemming from a poor understanding of human nature and addiction as it is (rather than some ignorant idealistic naive stilted view of the nature of addiction)

chemical dependency my friend. it is the hole in your world view that renders your entire perspective flawed, failed, useless, and in what my stokes my anger and hatred at you, ultimately harmful

because your model of how to treat har drugs like heroin in society blithely creates more addicts, because you somehow don't perceive how your worldview does that (because you don't understand the real nature of addiction) and/ or it ignores the pain addicts are in (because you downplay what it is like to actually be addicted)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The economics are important (none / 0) (#257)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:18:22 AM EST

Because, according to you, the addiction isn't the problem...

The loss of work, family, relationships, etc, are the problem.

Otherwise, you have to remove all addictive drugs, and you don't suggest this.

Yet, the swiss model has shown that addiction doesn't lead to all these things, and handing out drugs to addicts doesn't lead to increase in addiction rates either. In fact, the use of heroin increased in other countries that didn't use this model. (Yes, even given the swiss continue to prosecute a wide range of drug use).

The War on Drugs, simply DOES NOT decrease use and addiction. In fact, jugglers create more addiction, ie, addicts supplying non addicts with drugs to fund their own addiction. The WoDs creates users and addicts.

You also think that drug addiction is the only negative health side effect of drug use.

Addiction to these drugs, does not lead to the negative consequences of these drugs, except for the requirement to get the drugs, so the economics ARE the most important aspect.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

wait (none / 0) (#258)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:42:37 AM EST

i thought the swiss drug-related crime rates showed that the swiss approach didn't decrease abuse

pfffffffft

"the addiction isn't the problem... The loss of work, family, relationships, etc, are the problem"

yes, like i just said above, you simply don't understand the nature of addiction in your understanding of the problem of hard drug abuse. darling: addiction leads to the loss of work, family, relationships, etc. that's the association your missing in your mind

duh

... but in trying to understand why you think i would see these as decoupled issues, i can only conclude that you think it is possible, with the right governmental programs, to keep your family, job, and girlfriend... while an addict

heh. yet more proof that you just don't understand what addiction really is and what it really does to people, regardless of whether society beheads drug users, like saudi arabia, or provides generous support, like switzerland. in saudi arabia, or switzerland, the detrimental effects on the drug addicts life are the same

did you understand that? whether on saudi arabia, or in switzerland, in my mind, your life as an addict is the same

how can i think that?

you see, the central issue here- which you think somehow is tweaked by governmental programs (it's not, your failure to understand the inner suffering of the nature of addiction is that you think something as shallow as a government program can alter it), is the relationship between the human being and the addictive chemical. the evolution of this relationship, in it's unalterable ways, regardless of government being extremely hostile, or extremely tolerant thereof

it's a dance between chemical dependency and the psychology of the human mind. how that plays out, what it does to your life, is a greater force than any governmental program in terms of the quality of your life: an addict in a swiss program is leading a more unhappy life than a nonaddict in an oppressive society

because drug addiction is more oppressive than any government could ever be!

do you understand that about drug addiction?

in my worldview the negatives of this relationship outweigh whatever government does, positive and negative

am i clear to you now?

such that, in the end, the most effective way to reduce the creation of addicts is the most superior approach to abuse of highly addictive drugs. and unfortunately for you, a tolerant approach unfortunately results in more addicts. witness swiss drug crime rates. all of those addict sin switzerland are leading miserable lives. the point would be to alter swiss society such that LESS people turn to drugs. WHATEVER approach that is, no matter how cruel you view it, would result in LESS suffering, because addiciton itself is suffering

such that harm reduction is best achieved under a government that is very hostile to users and dealers. because this model, which you view as cruel and harm increaser, does a better job at decreasing the creation of addicts. which in my mind, in the end, results in a greater net harm reduction, regardless of how awful an addicts life is in such a hostile society

in other words, i agree to all of the suffering and evil of being hostile to drug addicts creates, i agree to every single observation you make about the detrimental effects of the war on drugs does to addicts and society... and yet in my mind the creation of LESS addicts results in LESS suffering OVERALL. because in my mind, but not yours, being an addict is itself a terrible form of suffering

and i think that if you actually understood the nature of hard drug addiction you would agree with me. but i don't think you understand it

my mind remains open though. my ultimate goal is the reduction of the creation of addicts. your goal seems to be the creation of cooshy comfy lives for existing addicts, that this reduces harm. except that the harm to drug addicts is not coming from government, it is coming from THE DRUG!

duh! (slaps forehead)

so, in the end, your entire agenda is tangential to mine: i don't fucking care if existing addicts get treated like royalty or are thrown in a turkish prison. all i care about is WHATEVER model results in the creation of the LEAST addicts is the most superior approach to hard drugs. beginning of my argument, end of argument, right there: the creation of the set of policies that results in the least addicts is the goal. because less addicts=less harm, overall

so in a way, your entire argument is pointless to me: i don't fucking care about the lives of addicts. once you become an addict, you are in the loss column in my mind. the point for me is to minimize the number of people in society who reach that point in their lives where they turn to heroin at all. you still consider the lives of addicts, after they become addicts. no, they are already diminished, zombified lives. they can recover into a grey haze, certainly, but their minds will always be sapped of willpower, always trying to fight that urge to turn to heroin instead of living a sober full life

you really need to understand what hard drug addiction does to a human life, permanently

you don't

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That is where you are wrong though (none / 0) (#259)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:08:19 AM EST

Addiction (heroin) does not lead to these things. The requirement to get heroin leads to them.

The swiss model showed that it DID decrease the rate of addiction RELATIVE to other countries that continued with the traditional drug route. More importantly, it didn't INCREASE addiction rates.

What you don't understand is that a clean, constant supply of heroin, maintenance, has very little effect on a person's ability to hold down jobs, relationships and family.

Its NOT the zombification you think it is.

Also, varying quality of street heroin itself helps increase addiction.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you simply don't understand chemical dependency (none / 0) (#260)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:26:47 AM EST

it shortcircuits willpower. your life becomes less about achieving valid goals (family, job, friends) and more about feeding an expensive (life experience wise, not financial wise) and empty asocial habit. and it simply grows and grows, until it has a lock on your life: the most important thing. it is like a fungal growth: it grows, and it consumes, and it never gives anything back of any worth in your life

it eats people alive: their personality, their character, their spirituality, their positiveness, their motivations in life: gone. all subsumed to a need to feed the monkey

you very much become a zombie. not in the hollywood horror movie way, but in the psychosocial character motivation way. leaden eyes, a grey outlook on life. no more joys and passions. except for one passion of course (which perhaps explains your motivations). everything becomes pointless and grey, except for one all consuming pursuit

do you understand this about hard drug addiction?

such that if you live in saudi arabia, or switzerland, this is true about you, regardless of how much tolerance and support you get

i want you to reflect carefully on that last sentence, maybe it will take you over the rubicon

simply reducing the exposure to the drug becomes the most important thing: WHETHER AN ADDICT OR NOT. nothing good comes out of further exposure, whether never tried heroin, or on your 10,000th fix. firther exposure is simply further sublimation of self. it results in a deeper morass. after your first exposure, your 10th, your 100th, your 1,000th: all that is left is simply a deeper pull on your life for more of that heroin

exposure to hard drugs sucks the life out of you, regardless of your socioeconomic standing, or your relative willpower or strength of character. it sucks it all out, in the end, reducing you to a wraith

not a literal wraith, a figurative depiction of the quality of your life: your motivation, your achievements, what you desire out of your life: one single all consuming desire begins to trump it all and grow as the prime directive of your life

the point is to simply remove that which does that to people. not cater to those already in the throes of that pointless consuming existence, or should i say, lack thereof. once you are burning in that fire, you have become a casualty, not someone who can be saved. you are already suffering. how society treats you, especially when considering your access to that which is torturing you (the drug, darling) isn't the point anymore for you. you are drowning, you are drowned


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You don't understand personal responsibility (none / 0) (#261)
by procrasti on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:14:04 PM EST

You are arguing that the government should protect people from themselves, e.g., outlaw base jumping because the high likelihood a person will hurt themselves means its an unacceptable risk.

It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves.

The WoDs has failed to stop people using drugs, each year the quality of the drugs increases, the price drops and availability increases. It did not stop you doing illegal drugs and it will not stop anyone else doing illegal drugs. Remember, the drugs you took are just as illegal, and yet somehow you got them anyway.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#262)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:59:56 PM EST

"It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves"

...so the government should provide free needle exchanges and low priced pharmaceutical quality heroin and a safe place to shoot up, or they will hurt themselves

dude, you can't keep waffing on what your perspective in an argument. it renders your point of view nonexistent: you contradict yourself from one comment to the next

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, the government should do those things to (none / 0) (#263)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:27:25 AM EST

 - remove the profit incentive from criminals that push on the young and vulnerable, and so that addicts don't create more addicts to fund their habits.
 - reduce the harm that addicts do to society.
 - give the government the opportunity to redirect people into rehabilitation.
 - provide the opportunity for the government to provide information directly to users (such as the dangers outlined your post above).

This could be done either directly or via licensing and regulation.

I mean, I can't think of the government ever doing this before after failing to prohibit something that harms its users and society... its such a new idea.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

dude, you're intellectually bankrupt (none / 0) (#264)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:14:21 AM EST

you waffle from one point of view to the next

i think that you are not arriving at a conclusion after a consideration of the facts. i think you already have a conclusion, and the "facts" arrange themselves as you see fit in support of that conclusion

i mean look how i've battered you around in this thread: you take one point of view, then another, then back to a first, then magically to a third that contradicts the second... ad nauseum

but anyway, time to pummel you some more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone

the government's attitude towards this drug seems to fit your recipe EXACTLY

and yet people resell it, abuse it, etc.

gee, i wonder why that is?

maybe it's that magical concept of chemical dependency and how powerful it is and how you magically, never seem to consider that in your point of view?

"provide the opportunity for the government to provide information directly to users (such as the dangers outlined your post above)"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

education. you think fucking education beats chemical dependency

pffffffffft

anaesthesiologists. some of the most intelligent and highly educated people, SPECIFICALLY ON THE SUBJECT OF OPIATES, in fact

anaesthesiologists. highest rates of chemical dependency in all of the medical professions

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

what's the magical deciding factor?

SIMPLE FUCKING EXPOSURE TO THE FUCKING CHEMICAL

WHAT I'VE SAID ALL ALONG

you're ignorant. you talk of education, and you are completely fucking ignorant of what happens when you mix a highly addicitve chemical with human nature

darling: free will ain't got a chance

which is why, in the end, my pov is a champion of freedom and an enemy of oppression: oppression by a chemical that does more damage than the most fascist totalitarian authoritarian government ever could

it is in THAT spirit that fight highly addictive drugs. the spirit of personal freedom

but you go ahead, fucktard. you fight the government policies that tells you not to make yourself a slave. how is personal freedom served by you, someone who declares that people should be able to choose to submit to a set of chemicals which sublimate the free will into chemical dependency?

oooooh, look at those evil controlling pigs. forcing me to not be able to destroy my free will!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

How can they be reselling it, if its available to (none / 0) (#265)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:59:38 AM EST

anyone?

That doesn't make sense.

And now you're going to tell me all about the homeless anaesthesiologists, with their deadened eyes.

As long as you say drug X cannot be legalised because of health issue Y, someone will point out your drugs cannot be legalised because of health issue Z.

Anyway, go on, continue supporting the drug dealers...  Lets keep it profitable for the unscrupulous, screw the crime, death and unnecessary suffering.

WoD FTW.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

wait what? (none / 0) (#266)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:17:10 AM EST

"How can they be reselling it, if its available to anyone?
That doesn't make sense."

so you're going to give heroin to anyone who asks, for any reason

anyone CAN get heroin now, but there are guidelines about who needs it. you're telling me they just ask and they get it?

what about teenagers? parent's permission?

what about convicts?

do you have any limits? apparently not. you actually believe open supply of heorin is not going to be abused, you're actually quite spectacular in your purposeful blindness of the fucking obvious

"Anyway, go on, continue supporting the drug dealers...  Lets keep it profitable for the unscrupulous, screw the crime, death and unnecessary suffering."

well yeah. there's also markets in the world for arms dealers, child traffickers, organ merchants, etc. so your approach is: an underground market exists with all the crime that comes with that. so let's destroy the underground market by embracing free trade in things like rocket launchers, slavery, and the poor selling their kidneys

dude, how badly do you want to lose this argument really?

i mean i'm not even trying now. your blindness is so spectacular, it has to be purposeful. i have to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you're stubborn for the sake of trying to win an unwinnable argument, not just colossally stupid. i can't imagine that anyone is no incredibly unconsciously blind to the fucking incredibly obvious truths about chemical dependency and human nature


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OC is for cancer patients and chronic pain only. (none / 0) (#267)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:47:32 AM EST

I would supply it to anyone who can afford it - as I said, the mark-up is absolutely massive.

I would not supply it to children/teenagers. Otherwise, yes, convicts, etc, why not? In fact, the Swiss supply heroin addicted convicts as part of their project, you haven't read that though, have you?

I would only supply it at shooting galleries, so you couldn't take it with you and resell it.

I don't believe that heroin would be widely abused. I believe there is a small set of people who are using it anyway, and maybe a very, very small subset of people who will use it if available like this who wouldn't otherwise. On the whole, I think the glamour of it being illegal would lead many not to use it, and the lack of dealers and addict/dealers pushing it on others would also decrease usage. These shooting galleries would tell people the dangers they are risking, attempting to dissuade non addicts and direct them to help/rehab, what dealer does that?

Would you use heroin if you could get it if you just asked?

There is plenty of legal arms dealing going on. Rocket launchers are hard to use in a way where the victim is the user (victimless). Child trafficking and slavery have obvious unwilling victims. The poor selling kidneys? This is a big problem is it? There are dealers making millions off of it? Buyers who keep coming back week after week for more kidney? Kidney pushers?

Drug users are their own victims. Why do you think drug dealers on the whole are so successful? The victim is the one creating the demand. The victim loves the perpetrator. Its fundamentally different to all the other markets you talk of. The market is strong, underground, and grows everyday.

i mean i'm not even trying now. your blindness is so spectacular
I have always pushed this approach, you keep getting confused because you think my idea is to eliminate addicts. The blindness is all on your side.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

wait (none / 0) (#268)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:03:39 AM EST

why do you think that all of those dissuasions are going to make an impact? the largest, and most important variable, is simple availability. when heroin is made available, no matter under what plan, it gets abused. aneasthesiologist know more about opaites then both of us put together times 100, and they abuse it, simply because it is available

oxycodone is made available for pain relief, and it is abused, because it is available

and you're going to limit it to kids. so no black market there, right? pfffffffffffft

why don't you simply understand that about human nature: availability of a hard drug leads to more use

that simple fact alone renders your entire plan moot. because that simple fact alone means that your plan results in more addicts and abuse


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Would you use it if it were available like this? (none / 0) (#269)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:18:24 AM EST

It will get abused, but by people who are going to abuse it anyway. The Swiss program showed that it changed perceptions about it, and less (relative to other countries) people started using it. It became unfashionable.

Anaesthesiologist abuse it, so what? Are they all homeless and jobless?

and you're going to limit it to kids. so no black market there, right? pfffffffffffft
A very small market that ends up evaporating as soon as they are adults. Today they are already a market, a market that doesn't evaporate, get em hooked early.

why don't you simply understand that about human nature: availability of a hard drug leads to more use
Why don't you understand that the Swiss model of making it available to addicts has in fact not led to this inevitability? I guess hard facts are trumped by you infinite knowledge of 'human nature'.

So, once more I ask, would you use it if it were available like this?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you're honestly going to tell me (none / 0) (#270)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:39:52 AM EST

availability has no effect on the amount of people who abuse it

you're honestly going to try to sell that steaming pile of dogshit to me with a straight face?

"Anaesthesiologist abuse it, so what? Are they all homeless and jobless?"

in broken homes. financially ruined. so yes, on the way there

"and you're going to limit it to kids. so no black market there, right? pfffffffffffft

A very small market that ends up evaporating as soon as they are adults. Today they are already a market, a market that doesn't evaporate, get em hooked early."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

uhhh

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"why don't you simply understand that about human nature: availability of a hard drug leads to more use
Why don't you understand that the Swiss model of making it available to addicts has in fact not led to this inevitability? I guess hard facts are trumped by you infinite knowledge of 'human nature'."

zzzzzz

"So, once more I ask, would you use it if it were available like this?"

yes, i would. because i know i am human, and i am weak. and in that moment of weakness: a major depression, a loss of a job, a loss of a girlfriend, i will be tempted to quell that pain with heroin

as you are vulnerable that way too

or do you think you are not? let's see what your "infinite knowledge of 'human nature'" is

;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't use it if it were available like this. (none / 0) (#271)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:59:15 AM EST

You are an addict waiting to happen. You have proven before that laws won't stop you taking illegal drugs. The right circumstances, you in a moment of weakness, a dealer with heroin in the room, you become the very addict you despise. The government won't keep you safe from this, you are an idiot if after all you say you would still take it, you fail anyway.

zzzz
You keep showing that the Swiss have a drug problem, and ignoring the fact that their program REDUCED drug addicts relative to other countries. Amazing fail.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

uhhh

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
pffffffftt

(snicker)

dear snookums,
love your argument.
xoxoxox

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

everyone is an addict waiting to happen (none / 0) (#272)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:02:18 PM EST

except you

ignorance and arrogance. you are the very essence of hubris. you are immune to that which everyone is vulnerable to. amazing, simply amazing

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm not stupid enough to take heroin, no matter (none / 0) (#273)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:09:27 PM EST

the legal state.

I'm more likely to take it off a friend than go down to a clinic to get it.

I don't even argue what a loser you will inevitably become... the loser is you. You would think that you would heed your own warnings.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

that was incoherent (none / 0) (#274)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:13:34 PM EST

  1. you think your willpower is stronger than your emotional ups and downs and access to heroin
  2. you would take it off a friend, which conveniently destroys the entire argument about a nonexistent secondary market. which is pretty funny in its own right
  3. you call me a loser, because i respect the power of heroin

you continually and constantly fail to understand what addiction is, and how it renders your entire point of view ignorant

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You are a total, hypocritical, fucking idiot. (none / 0) (#275)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:30:04 PM EST

  1. You missed the part where I told you I lived with heroin users, and know quite a few? A couple in their bedroom, injecting, smoking, chasing the dragon, in my house for years? I can get it any time I decide, including medical grade morphine.
  2. I would MORE likely take it off a friend, rather than get it in a clinic, but if I was taking it, I would get it from a clinic, no? Also, sheer competition would decrease that market into unimportance.
  3. the ultimate end point of the selfish, self-absorbed narcissist who chooses chemistry over society: zombification. the suicide of the self. the end point of heroin dependency by the narcissist is complete destruciton of the self.

Now fuck off you self proclaimed, selfish, self-absorbed narcissist. You continually and constantly fail to understand that the market will always supply drugs and create new addicts, and how it renders your entire point of view ignorant.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
zzzz (none / 0) (#276)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:06:47 PM EST

"You continually and constantly fail to understand that the market will always supply drugs and create new addicts, and how it renders your entire point of view ignorant."

i never said anything to disagree with that. i in fact agree with that statement 100%. however, tolerance in any shape simply results in more addicts

BECAUSE

THE

DRUG

ITSELF

IS

THE

PROBLEM

NOT

THE

POLICY

so you lived with heroin addicts huh? how they all doing now? ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yawn (none / 0) (#277)
by procrasti on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:56:34 AM EST

The drug doesn't cause crime, death and disease, the policy does. The drug doesn't create an incentive to get more people addicted, the policy does.

tolerance in any shape simply results in more addicts
No, profit incentive for dealers to get more people hooked simply results in more addicts.

so you lived with heroin addicts huh? how they all doing now? ;-)
They got married, continue to work, bought a new house and have a six year old child.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

and there's our essential difference (none / 0) (#278)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:30:45 PM EST

you think the policy is worse than the drugs, i think the drugs are worse than the policy

i don't know if i'm on record saying it yet, but to think that a governmental policy exerts more negative force than a FUCKING HIGHLY ADDICTIVE CHEMICAL is fucking retarded


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes, that is our difference. (none / 0) (#279)
by procrasti on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:36:23 PM EST

that a governmental policy exerts more negative force than a FUCKING HIGHLY ADDICTIVE CHEMICAL is fucking retarded
Good argument retard. I'm sure there were people who argued exactly the same way regarding alcohol.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
yeah, no one abuses alcohol now (none / 0) (#280)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:52:56 PM EST

ah the magic of heroin

how could the government do that to her?

luckily she'll take full advantage of the rehab opportunities since she is in a high socioeconomic bracket

"they try to make me go to rehab, i won't go, go, go"

what, she won't go?

MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yeah, no one abuses alcohol now (none / 0) (#281)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 05:46:42 AM EST

oh wait, they do??? Well then, the only thing to do is to prohibit it, right? I mean how could a zero tolerance approach to alcohol possibly be worse than the drug itself? We must do whatever it takes to decrease alcohol abuse.

Yes, heroin is the reason these two battered each other, obviously.

Oh, great video, I really love this song, and it completely sums up the point that you can't force people to quit if they don't want to. As the Buddhist says, change must come from within. It also shows why the Swiss model works, it lets people continue with their use, until they decide for themselves its time to quit, achieving more than double the long term recovery rate.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

friend (none / 0) (#282)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:17:51 AM EST

you've been repeating that mantra for awhile now. just shut your eyes, and keep repeating it, it, and a dollop of stubbornness, is apparently all you have to get you through


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
There is precedent that prohibiting a dangerous (none / 0) (#283)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:02:02 AM EST

social drug actually does more harm than good. The fact that you go on to say that alcohol is abused proves my point. The fact that you use drugs despite their prohibition proves my point. The fact that this drug has a small group of very loyal repeat customers proves my point. The fact that you can't understand why people won't go into rehab proves my point, and shows your total lack of understanding of human psychology.

Thinking you would use this drug if you could get it legally but not otherwise shows you are a moron and a hypocrite.

You are supporting the Al Capones of hard drugs, forcing users out of work and into criminal occupations to support their habit.

If anyone is closing their eyes, being stubborn and repeating a mantra its you, but as a troll, you're doing great.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

this sounds familiar (none / 0) (#284)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:33:50 AM EST

oh yeah, i already smacked you down on this point

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
oh yeah, but people abuse alcohol (none / 0) (#285)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:01:16 AM EST

wasn't that your point?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nothing the government can do can be worse than the drug.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(snicker)

But this drug is worse, its like totally different man.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you call that a smack down moron?

all my love sweety,
x0x0x0x0x


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

different drug, different law (none / 0) (#286)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:12:40 AM EST

nicotine: highly addictive, barely inebriating: legal

lsd: barely addictive, highyl inebriating: legal

alcohol, marijuana: middle addictive, middle inebriating: legal

coke, meth, heroin: highly addictive, highly inebriating: illegal

it's not too hard to figure out darling

but if you want us to live in a world where talcum powder and polonium 210 should be equally treated under the law, then by all means, continue your brave crusade against

simple. common. fucking. sense.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And yet, that highly addictive nature (none / 0) (#287)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:44:44 AM EST

is the very reason it should be made available, so that the addicts don't keep lining the pockets of drug cartels at our expense.

If prohibition doesn't work for alcohol, how can it possibly work for a MUCH MORE addictive drug, with far more loyal customers?

When the drugs aren't illegal, just a health problem, the usage drops, they aren't cool. Lancet even says so, but that's too complicated for you.

polonium is barely addictive, and barely inebriating idiot.

Don't talk of common sense when you show none - argue against heroin then proclaim you would take it - moron of highest degree.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

my head asplode (none / 0) (#288)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:12:19 AM EST

"that highly addictive nature is the very reason it should be made available, so that the addicts don't keep lining the pockets of drug cartels at our expense"

if something is weakly addictive, the negative effects of the mafia is a worse effect

if something is highly addictive, the negative effects of the addiction is a worse effect

comprende?

here, let me help you out with the idea of addiction

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (none / 0) (#289)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:55:38 AM EST

HILARIOUS

HEROIN ADDICTED ELEPHANT PROVES YOUR POINT!!!!

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fuck, I can't stop laughing at your stupidity.

oh dear, shit that's funny.

posed a danger to people if denied his fix

OK...

If something is highly addictive, your customers are more loyal, and will boost your profit year after year. The addict will do more damage to society in order to provide profit for the supplier. The more heroin is cracked down on, the more profit there is to be had, the more violence occurs and the richer the cartels become. Economics my son.

If prohibition fails on relatively mild drugs, how can it possibly work for these drugs? Surely it would have been easier to stop a non-addictive drug?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i don't understand you (none / 0) (#290)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:35:57 PM EST

if something is highly addictive, making it more available results in more addicts

what part of your brain is broken on this incredibly obvious point?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That's because you're thick cts (none / 0) (#291)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:08:05 PM EST

if something is highly addictive, making it more available results in more addicts
What part of the Lancet didn't you understand?

Interpretation The harm reduction policy of Switzerland and its emphasis on the medicalisation of the heroin problem seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive for young people.

Its all about marketing stupid. If you advertised FREE HEROIN, CURE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS - you might have a point, negative advertising, redirection to psychological help and rehabilitation will do the opposite.

Your local drug dealer isn't going to tell you about the dangers, they're not going to offer you access to rehabilitation and counselling, they're going to make it seem like you're cool if you do it.

Not everyone is an idiot and will think, oh, I'll take heroin because I can get it at a clinic with a lot of other losers. The only people who think that are already doing it today.

A question, do you think, if you worked at it, you might be able to procure heroin today? Do you know anyone you suspect might have connections? Do you know which street corner its available at today?

One more thing that will make your small mind asplode the earwax out of your head: How could repealing the prohibition of hard liquors possibly lead to LESS use of hard liquor?

Certainly not a very intuitive, incredibly obvious, result, is it?

Link is long but very interesting.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

why do you think education (none / 0) (#292)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:16:41 PM EST

is stronger than addiction, or the feelings of helplessness, depression, anxiety, other sources of psychological pain, etc., that drives people to use heroin as a soothing aid in the first place?

once you take heroin, you start down a path that leads to... drum roll please... more heroin. of course, you may not take it ever again, but the point is that you establish a hurdle your willpower must get over each and every time you consider taking it again, and people's willpower waxes and wanes. as we go up and down in happiness and depression in our daily lives , if we had established a pattern of heroin use at some previous point in our lives, at ANY point in our lives, the brain begins to preemptively consider using heroin to soothe psychological pain rather than non-addictive drug means. it's a monkey on your back for life, relapse always a possibility

why do you think these simple facts about human psychology and addiction is somehow beholden to studies that you misinterpret?

why can't you understand the power of addiction?

why do you think educating someone will mean they won't abuse heroin?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You didn't read the link. (none / 0) (#293)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:12:30 PM EST

You didn't answer any of my questions.

You didn't even think.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

this our conversation: (none / 0) (#294)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 06:48:08 PM EST

me: "how do we stop the proliferation of cane toads?"

you: "doesn't matter, once here, cane toads should be pampered and coddled, andthis will prevent more cane toads form appearing, through magic"

you say i didn't think or answer your questions

yes, i have thought, and i have thought that your questions are completely tangetial to the issue at hand: the prevention of drug addicts

you seem more concerned about their treatment once they exist, as if that is supposed to have an effect on their creation

no, i won't follow you down your trial of thought, because your trail of thought has nothing to do with the issues

now, go ahead and accuse me of various closed mindedness

i don't consider it closed minded, i consider being able to keep track of the fucking issues!

you're daft man

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

cane toads aren't people (none / 0) (#295)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:48:48 AM EST

Can you get heroin today? Yes or no?

Otherwise STFU fucktard.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i can get heroin (none / 0) (#296)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:06:07 AM EST

if i live in saudi arabia

i can get heroin

if i live in switzerland

i can get heroin in any country in the world, at any time

any drug policy change you propose, or i propose, or anyone in the world proposes, will never change the fact that if i want it, i can get heroin, anywhere, anytime

duh! you think this is news to me?

no fucking shit sherlock

HOWEVER, it's a lot easier to get it in switzerland than saudi arabia... and there is a lot less addicts in saudi arabia

interesting that little observation, huh?

of course, saudi arabia is too brutal. i don't condone their approach. that's not my point here. my point here is to make a simple supposedly fucking obvious point to you about addiction rates and availability

more availability = more addicts

please, argue agains tthat blindingly obvious fact until the cows come home. it kind of defeats your entire point of view though

oh, sorry, almost forgot:

STFU fucktard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Glad you answered my question (none / 0) (#297)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:09:18 PM EST

If you don't have a conversation with me and just repeat a mantra, its impossible for me to have a conversation with you, therefore you just waste time when I could be responding to your queries.

Are you now saying that you can actually get heroin, but you won't take it unless the government hands it out in clinics? You see the contradictions you're getting yourself into now.

I guess you are also now saying that it IS POSSIBLE that a government program to reduce heroin usage can in fact be WORSE than the FUCKING HIGHLY ADDICTIVE DRUG? At least in principle. I guess this makes you a retard.

You're point seems to echo EXACTLY the mantra of the temperance movement:

The anti-alcohol movement was devoted to convincing people that alcoholic drink in any form was dangerous and destructive. Throughout the nineteenth century, temperance supporters insisted that alcohol slowly but inevitably destroyed the moral character and the physical and mental health of all who drank it. Temperance supporters regarded alcohol the way people today view heroin: as an inherently addicting substance. Moderate consumption of alcohol, they maintained, naturally led to compulsive use--to addiction.

Makes me wonder how much smarter and more informed you are than they were.

The Swiss model was criticised that handing out heroin to drug addicts (who had been using it for more than 2 years) would attract MORE people to heroin, yet the Lancet said the opposite happened. In fact, you said two years ago, that this is exactly what would happen and now the data exists to prove you wrong. Am I misrepresenting either you or the Lancet?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

how many times do i have to go over this (none / 0) (#298)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:38:47 PM EST

different drug. different law

does that make any sense to you?

do you perhaps see the idiocy of taking all drugs, and treating them the same way legally?

as for the swiss, explain this

but we've over this same material, time and time and time again, all of which i have smacked down

i'm surprised you haven't brought up rat park again, so i can smack down that bullshit again too

are you somehow hoping that if you come at with the same disproved argument two ro three or four times that i will say something different?

i'm just hewing to logic friend

harm reduction priorty #1 is not making the lives of the already addicted comfortable. harm reduction job #1 is LIMITING THE CREATION OF ADDICTS. because addiciton is suffering. not how the government treats addicts!

i've already said it, 20x, 30x: if you are an addict in saudi arabia, or in switzerland, where the government has radically different attitudes towards you, YOU SUFFER THE SAME AMOUNT

BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF YOUR SUFFERING IS THE DRUG, NOT THE GOVERNMENT

how many fucking times do i have to say that before it sinks in you ignorant blind fuck


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

different drug, different law (none / 0) (#299)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:54:24 PM EST

and yet, we see, different drug, same law, same logic... I think the law and logic are wrong.

as for the swiss, explain this
I couldn't find any dates associated with this, the link just says - latest data. Either way, I know that the Swiss have always been particularly strong in enforcement of all drugs. You will go to jail for pot there. Having said this, they saw that their drug laws were failing, especially regard the hard drugs, and hence they started this experiment.

They were criticised that giving away heroin to drug addicts would attract more people to heroin, and it did not. The fact that they still have strong prosecution for drugs DOES NOT CHANGE THIS FACT. You said that would happen, and it did not.

i've already said it, 20x, 30x: if you are an addict in saudi arabia, or in switzerland, where the government has radically different attitudes towards you, YOU SUFFER THE SAME AMOUNT

BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF YOUR SUFFERING IS THE DRUG, NOT THE GOVERNMENT
You suffer A LOT MORE without hands. Only a retard, such as yourself, could possibly think otherwise.

i'm surprised you haven't brought up rat park again, so i can smack down that bullshit again too
You think the conclusions of rat park are that we must make everyone happy. Which is a retarded restatement of the result of rat park that I do not intend, and you consider that a smack down. Rat park would probably show similar results with alcohol.

do you perhaps see the idiocy of taking all drugs, and treating them the same way legally?
I don't think handing out alcohol under medical supervision in clinics after offering psychological counselling and rehabilitation is a rational way to handle alcohol. So DUH!

harm reduction priorty #1 is not making the lives of the already addicted comfortable. harm reduction job #1 is LIMITING THE CREATION OF ADDICTS. because addiciton is suffering. not how the government treats addicts!
No, that isn't the definition of harm reduction, feel free to make up terms as you like.

One of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs, is people like you who like to redefine things, and basically lie. If you tell me two lies and one truth, I will assume you have told me three lies. If the anti-drug crowd dealt in truth alone (and this is where I mean education) a lot less people would take up heroin.

You somehow think that if heroin was legalised, then EVERYONE would start doing heroin. I believe that at the absolute most, marginally more people would start. Everyone has access today, idiots (pointing at you) will take drugs anyway, fuck the government, so people don't make decisions based on the legality, and availability is clearly UNAFFECTED by the War on Drugs if a socially inept internet troll can get them, anyone can.

Please explain how regulating hard liquor can possibly lead to less use of hard liquor.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

ok, so the government should decriminalize meth? (none / 0) (#300)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:37:29 PM EST

i mean, different drug, but we treat them all the same right?

it's a different drug, different effects, but we should treat it the same!

and in the same breath, i want you to consider alcohol and its biochemical effects and the lessons of prohibition THE SAME AS HEROIN

and you talk to me about lies?

howabout an inability to comprehend the fucking obvious?

you say i lie?

i say you don't even fucking understand what you are fucking talking about!

YOU'RE IGNORANT ABOUT THE FACTS

and you DO want to revisit rat park? wtf?! BWAHAHAHAHA

hey, howabout we revisit the concomitant argument in drug thread version 1.0 where you were trying to convince me

  1. addicition doesn't exist
  2. ok, ok, it exists. then: heroin isn't addicting
  3. ok, ok, it's addicting. then: but barely, less than alcohol even

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

go ahead, you're so shamelessly stubborn, that just by me suggesting those 3 levels of your previous moronicity you will immediately come to defend the earlier stupider version of yourself in this thread, right? on the principle you never say or do anything wrong, right?

or, maybe you can take the lessons of falling silent on that previous retarded argument of yours (because you've changed your mind and now agree with me that heroin is highly addictive, in line with FUCKING OBVIOUS FACT), and in drug thread version 2.0, extrapolate and realize that by the time we get to drug thread version 3.0, YOU'LL ALSO AGREE WITH ME THAT

DIFFERENT DRUG

DIFFERENT LAW

i'm slowly and surely re-educating you son

since you like to tlak about education and drugs so much

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

different drug, but we treat them all the same (none / 0) (#301)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:29:28 PM EST

See, if you had actually read the link I posted, you would see, that yes, all drug prohibition came from alcohol prohibition. Ie, all different drugs were treated the same.

The problem is that MANY people use alcohol, and therefore was the HARDEST to prohibit. The fact that its addiction/inebriation/psychosis profiles are different HAD NOTHING TO DO with it being finally being regulated.

Rat Park shows that Heroin (THE WORST OF ALL BOOGYDRUGS) is NOT AS ADDICTIVE as Rat models seem to suggest. Anything else you think I said is in your own mind. Perhaps you would like to give an estimate of the number of addicts vs the number of users?

As for meth, I will state again, that it owes its existence to the WoD. You think that no one will substitute one drug for another, but this is wrong.

It has frequently been observed that drug prohibition tends to drive out the weaker and milder forms of drugs, and to increase the availability and use of stronger and more dangerous drugs (see, e.g., Brecher, 1972). This has been so often reported that many analysts speak of it as an "iron law" of drug prohibition. This "law" holds because milder drugs are usually bulkier, harder to hide and smuggle, and less remunerative

Now, a prediction, the continued crack down on meth, ie, by removing pseudoephedrine etc, from the market will result in the creation of an even more dangerous and addictive drug within the decade --- it will be called 'P' or similar.

So, for these reasons, yes, meth should be supplied to those that wanted it, as heroin, opium, crack, cocaine and coca leaf.

You claim that addiction is the MOST SUFFERING a person can experience in the world. Yet, I claim that an addict in Switzerland under the prescription heroin program SUFFERS FAR LESS than an addict under other circumstances.

Finally, how can hard liquor consumption decrease when hard liquor is regulated rather than prohibited.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you utterly blow my mind (none / 0) (#302)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:32:45 PM EST

you honestly believe the harm done to a user of drugs is by the government, and not the drug?

you honestly believe that the entire world operates on the dissaffected rich western teenage retarded way of thinking: "i'm going to do that because daddy told me not to"?

you honestly, believe these things?

my mind go boom


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#303)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:12:24 PM EST

you honestly believe the harm done to a user of drugs is by the government, and not the drug?
Drug + Environment == HARM

Do you know what Diamorphine is? Do you know what its legally used for (outside the US)?

you honestly believe that the entire world operates on the dissaffected rich western teenage retarded way of thinking: "i'm going to do that because daddy told me not to"?
What class are the biggest users of cocaine and heroin? Middle and upper middle class white males in their twenties and thirties.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

EVERYBODY READ THE ABOVE COMMENT (3.00 / 1) (#304)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 12:29:53 AM EST

so for the sake of young stupid middle and upper class white western males we are having this argument?

oh, you brave fighter for the poor oppressed masses

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you will excuse me if the suffering of the useless ignorant turds of the rich priveleged west are put out by meddlesome laws intended for the brown lower classes

asshole: kindly cut your dick off, stick in your throat, and choke to death

you are ignorant, you are arrogant, and you are poisonous turd

that is the sum total of your existence

you are genuinely useless to this world. go. fill the void of your existence with heroin

please: go get some street heroin, overdose, and die

i am not joking. die yhou fucking piece of shit. PLEASE

and if you do overdose, because the oppressive laws of the government policy i defend means you can't get carefully calibrated dosing, then

GOOD

IT COULDN'T HAPPEN FASTER TO YOU RICH FUCKING SELF-CENTERED WESTERN USELESS TURD

by saying this:

"What class are the biggest users of cocaine and heroin? Middle and upper middle class white males in their twenties and thirties."

YOU COULDN'T MAKE ME HAPPIER FOR MAKING THE MOST OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT DRUG LAWS AROUND

IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE AND RICH AND UPPER MIDDLE CLASS RICH IGNORANT WERSTERNERS HAVE MORE MISERABLE LIVES AND DIE FASTER BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER

you don't deserve anything but suffering and death

go. go to your drug you believe saves you from that

it helps the pain, really. go friend, take some (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY

"What class are the biggest users of cocaine and heroin? Middle and upper middle class white males in their twenties and thirties."

my

fucking

GOD

the humanity


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Right retard, slowly your getting there (none / 0) (#305)
by procrasti on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:12:24 AM EST

Now tell me, who goes to jail the most?

Who ends up dealing it the most?

Which users end up suffering the most?

Interesting... same story again as during alcohol prohibition.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

what, you're still alive? (none / 0) (#306)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:16:48 PM EST

take some more heroin man, and get back to me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yeah baby, I'm going to be here a long time yet (none / 0) (#307)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 02:35:29 AM EST

Aren't you trying to save all of us (rich white boys) from addiction, the WORST KIND OF SLAVERY THAT EXISTS, WORSE THAN THE WORST GULAGS (except for actual gulags obviously).

Even though its the poor that suffer from enforcement, crime, death, disease, variable quality and addiction?

Users does not equal addicts -- I'm talking about the largest class to have even tried. Do you disagree with this statement?

I don't think so, that's why you've blown your mind. Anyway, I'll take your death wishes on me as a sign that you can't handle the truth, and have in fact lost this debate. You lost it with that comment in more way than one.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

what i've lost is all respect for you (none / 0) (#308)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:48:44 AM EST

i am not arguing with someone interested in what is right or wrong

i am arguing with someone who ignores consequences

the consequences of using heroin are far greater in abuses in than anything any government policy could do concerning the drug

you don't even know what heroin is really like

why do you open your ignorant motuh on the subject when you don't even know what it is like to use heroin?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LOLOLOLOLOL (none / 0) (#309)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:58:12 AM EST

Firstly, you've never had respect, so fuck you, you arrogant, ignorant cunt.

Next, you have no fucking idea what it is like to use heroin, so don't be so daft. You've seen a few street people, I've known others. You have zero direct experience with any drug you complain about.

Let me show you the damage your idiotic war causes. LOL, women, children and poor people being bought, sold and killed --- HAHAHAHA, how fucking funny. Makes you so proud to support it, doesn't it asshole?

All you've done is give up because I pointed out the truth about who uses drugs... At first you think its very funny, then you thought about it, and realised you have no fucking response.

Unless you're a racist asshole who really thinks that poor black people use drugs at the rate at which they are incarcerated for them.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

wait (none / 0) (#310)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:36:41 AM EST

your link seems to support the notion that you need to crack down on users

you need to vet your links a littel better son

better yet, WHY DON'T YOU READ YOUR OWN LINK

because yes, as you say "women, children and poor people being bought, sold and killed"

by the users, dummy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You should read some of the comments there (none / 0) (#311)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:59 AM EST

No, its not the USERS doing the damage in this case, its the PRODUCERS.

Any idiot can tell that the damage occurs because of the War on Drugs, not the demand... its not like demand causes people to die trying to smuggle coffee into the country. Any idiot knows that the demand isn't going away either.

You should apply a little more critical thinking retard and not just swallow whatever propaganda appears in an article.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

let's talk about scotland (none / 0) (#312)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:41:37 AM EST

and let's talk about not just the science of drug addiction, but the artistic depictions of drug addiction

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117951/

look at these poor blokes, victims of government oppression. that infamous bathroom scene shows how government persecution of innocent users drove him into that toilet right? nothing else could motivate him, right? (snicker)

please, dear procrasti, find me an artistic depiction of heroin use that is glowing and positive. because, as we know, it's the GOVERNMENT, not the DRUG that does the damage, right? (WTF?!)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Stop being an idiot (none / 0) (#314)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:09:30 AM EST

How fucking retarded are you?

Please explain why he would be going down the toilet if he could get his heroin from the government.

Please explain how they would get into dealing it, if the government was supplying it.

Please explain how the guy would get aids.

Please explain why they would steal to get their heroin.

Please show me a movie glorifying alcohol addiction.

Please, explain how you are protecting those columbians? (You never stick to one issue, cause everytime I point something out, you change the topic).

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i didn't change the subject darling (none / 0) (#315)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:32:19 AM EST

i blamed those vile columbians with their infamous neckties on the USERS darling. please try reading my comments fuckwad

the point, as far as you know is HARM REDUCTION

harm reduction is gotten about by REDUCING USERS not CODDLING USERS

for those already addicted, life is a living hell because of the DRUG, not the GOVERNMENT. or you think that toilet scene is literal? that if he got his rectal heroin via the government rather than via a socttish hellhole, that everything would be ok?

man, if only things were so easy

you poor ignorant turd

listen turd: once you are a user, you are in hell. you are already in the loss column

there is no HARM REDUCTION for those already HARMED

you're not very good at artistic interpretation, are you? the movie trainspotting, as well as many others, is about the hell of addiction. which is hellish, period, whether you are owen wilson with all the money and drugs in the most pure form you could ever get, or you are homeless on the street

do you understand that?

no, obviously you don't. you think if ewan mcgregor got his heroin from the capital building on george street rather than the worst toilet in the worst pub in edinburgh that that would make the difference

pffffffffft. as if! you're so ignorant

HARM REDUCTION. right procrasti?

HARM REDUCTION: reduce the number of USERS, by cracking down on the trade, rather than coddling the existing users, WHO ARE ALREADY HARMED, AND WILL BE HARMED, NO MATTER HOW WELL YOU TREAT THEM, BECAUSE THE SUFFERING IS THE ADDICTION. NOT THE TOILET

do you FUCKING understand that you ignorant twat?

no, you obviously don't

which means, obviously, that you don't fucking understand the fucking nature of fucking drug addiction. at. all.

and you spout off about it. and you are ignorant of it

watch trainspotting again darling

learn

then open your ignorant piehole about what the suffering involved is all about


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That is NOT THE DEFINITION OF HARM REDUCTION (none / 0) (#316)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:45:29 AM EST

RETARD... You don't redefine a term, you argue its pros and cons.

i blamed those vile columbians with their infamous neckties on the USERS darling. please try reading my comments fuckwad

You didn't read my reply then, stating that your view was retarded. Do people get enslaved by the alcohol production industry because of its users? (Oh, except during prohibition of course -- stupid alcohol users).

Whatever, whether that scene was literal or metaphorical, the point is that the crimes they committed, their desperation and the other negative affects (despite being addicted) were due to the need to get ILLEGAL heroin.

The other movie you linked had nothing to do with alcohol addiction retard. I guess this never happens.

If I am wrong, then why will the UK be supplying heroin and crack cocaine to dependent users next year? Are they as thick as me perhaps?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you can be addicted to many things (none / 0) (#317)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:10:52 PM EST

alcohol, videogames, fame and fortune, wearing diapers while a hired porstitute whips you

lots of things

and all addictions limit the quality of your life when they are pursued at the expense of all else

now, every thing has an addiction potential, a potential for abuse. for most things, the potential for abuse is below a threshold where cracking down on whatever it is that is addicting actually does more harm than good. however, there are a hadnful of chemical substances whose addiction potential is so virulent, that even cracking down on them, with all of the negatives that implies, is still less harm than the harm the chemicals do themselves

do you understand me asshole?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So, the harm to those columbians is worth saving (none / 0) (#318)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:28:59 PM EST

a few white rich boys from addiction is it?

Criminal activity by users is worth saving them from addiction? Death by overdose, disease? Criminal gang activity? All worth it to save a few idiots from themselves?

So, why would the UK be making crack and heroin available to dependent users then?

Perhaps its because you are an idiot.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

cause and effect (none / 0) (#319)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:36:09 PM EST

it's a miraculous concept

there are no columbians involved in the oxycodone trade. anyone can get the drug with a legal prescription, safe doses even. the nirvana you seek. so what is the problem? that it is over-regulated? why the illicit trade with all of the prohibition era crime enhancement you point to?

no, darling, it's the virulence of the addictiveness of the drug itself. the whole prohibition parallel falls apart because alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke or meth

do you follow that? the prohibition parallel falls apart because alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as heroin or coke or meth

do. you. fucking. understand. what. addiction. is

no. you don't. it's the one place your arguments always avoid. because it's the place you lose your argument


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What's your point on OC again? (none / 0) (#320)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:49:18 PM EST

Its not available to anyone dependent on it... so, its as good as prohibited for those who want it, hence the crime - but being prescribed, there's not a huge markup on it.

Those columbians are dying as a direct result of the drug being illegal. If its production and supply was regulated, none of that would happen.

Prohibition doesn't fall apart because of the drug's profile... The EXACT same argument was used for alcohol.

Here's two quotes for you from UK government and law enforcement sources:

Ms Wood, a detective superintendent, said there was "tacit acceptance" among the authorities that many people can use cocaine recreationally and get on with their everyday life

The Home Office document, marked "Restricted Policy", says: "Contrary to popular belief, there is evidence that heroin does not necessarily intoxicate the user - it can be stabilised with people living relatively normal lives."

You don't think its telling, that of all the things you can think of that might be addictive and deleterious, you can't think of anything other than drugs that need these controls?

Why are the UK going to offer crack cocaine and heroin to dependent users?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the point is, that you missed... (none / 0) (#321)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:05:28 PM EST

is that there shouldn't be an illegal market for oxycodone, because oxycodone exists in the realm of the lessons of alcohol prohibition: cheaply, safely available to anyone who needs it

and yet there still is a black market for it, with all of the crime associated (please don't make me smack you down with a google search by saying there is no crime of substance attached to the illicit trade in oxycodone)

so why is that?

that is so because the chemical is so highly addictive,such that with all of the lessons of alcohol prohibition applied, there is still crime attached to it

like with cocaine. if you legalized cocaine, you would still have columbians running around cutting their wonderful neckties because there would still be crime associated with it. because it is so addictive

...wait, i'm sorry, your mind automatically edits out that concept, here let me help you with a rewrite:

if you legalized cocaine, you would still have columbians running around cutting their wonderful neckties because there would still be crime associated with it. because it is so addictive - because people in government like to arbitrarily control people's lives just because they are constipated.

there, better now? (snicker)

there will always be limitations on your distribution policy of heroin/ coke/ meth, no matter how liberal: no kids, for example, no convicts, for example. and whatever limitations there are, you will have a group of people who want it, and will turn to criminals to get it. why? how?

BECAUSE IT'S HIGHLY ADDICTIVE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER

YOU KNOW, THE FUCKING BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS CONCEPT YOU NEVER ADDRESS IN ANY OF ARGUMENTS

BECAUSE THE FUCKING CONCEPT DEFEATS YOUR ENTIRE POINT OF VIEW

oh wait, because government tries to control it. THAT's what makes people take cocaine heroin and meth and have ruined destitute lies. because the government tries to control it. not because of the drug itself

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You can't just get OC... you can't get it just (none / 0) (#322)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:09:45 PM EST

because you want it... therefore there is an illegal market for it.

Alcohol production was associated with crime, regulate the market and the MAJORITY of the crime goes away, as it would with cocaine.

The rest you are trying to argue against government reports, so be retarded, it really helps your point.

Let me guess, you think nobodies lives are ruined by alcohol either?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so: meth, heroin, coke for kids? for poor (free)? (none / 0) (#323)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:20:06 PM EST

after all, we have to fanatically stamp out all black markets, right? because that will magically make highly addictive substances harmless right?

so there will be NO limits on who gets heorin, coke, meth in your program: free from the government to anyone who shows up, no questions asked, right?

ADDICTION

MOTHERFUCKER

DO YOU SPEAK IT?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The idea is to destroy the MAJORITY of market (none / 0) (#324)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:09:10 PM EST

You don't give whiskey to children, I already said not for children... Is your memory so bad?

As for the poor, drugs are marked up about 1500%... you do the maths, its affordable even for the poor.

In the UK, the approach will be that you have to be already addicted and you get it for free.

I think the users can pay for it, plus cover health issues via taxes (like cigs & alcohol), with some exceptions for the very poor who are dependent. I also think that until its regulated, issues like the columbian suffering will continue.

I already told you that the WoD CREATED meth. Its a market response (substitute) to cracking down on cocaine --- A new drug will replace meth in under five years, mark my words, due to the crackdown on the ingredients of meth -- it will be WORSE than meth and you will long for the days when meth was the worst drug around.

ADDICTION
Go, on name one other thing besides drugs that's addictive, destroys peoples lives and is completely illegal.

The anti-alcohol movement was devoted to convincing people that alcoholic drink in any form was dangerous and destructive. Throughout the nineteenth century, temperance supporters insisted that alcohol slowly but inevitably destroyed the moral character and the physical and mental health of all who drank it. Temperance supporters regarded alcohol the way people today view heroin: as an inherently addicting substance. Moderate consumption of alcohol, they maintained, naturally led to compulsive use--to addiction

Ms Wood, a detective superintendent, said there was "tacit acceptance" among the authorities that many people can use cocaine recreationally and get on with their everyday life

The Home Office document, marked "Restricted Policy", says: "Contrary to popular belief, there is evidence that heroin does not necessarily intoxicate the user - it can be stabilised with people living relatively normal lives."


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
this is what really blows my mind about you (none / 0) (#325)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:23:29 PM EST

you see the government as the source of all of this insanity- the wod created meth, for instance

and not simple human addictive nature

and you continually avoid that subject matter

your entire point of view is predicated on the lack of existence of a human addictive nature

which, considering the subject matter, ought to register as the majority of your concern. but it doesn't and so you wind up with these incredibly retarded opinions about what guides human interaction with addictive mind altering substances... like the wod created meth!

LAFF!

in your incredible bizarro fantasy world, people turn to drugs not out of a simple craven desire, but because of government policy

it's awesome. like talking with a dead serious ufo cultist. the hairs rising on the edge of your neck become a source excitement, at watching this incredible mental train wreck

i've spent the majority of this thread bashing you and your retarded opinions, but i am now of a different opinion: don't ever change. you're like a rare impossible exotic species, of impossible thought, the ridiculous taken utterly seriously

for you, that would be that addiction has no bearing in the formation of one's opinions on drug policy

incredible fascinating weird utterly blind


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you're an idiot (none / 0) (#326)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:53:51 PM EST

People don't turn to drugs because of the government, I NEVER ONCE argued that.

People get addicted to these drugs, its true, I don't argue that either -- people get addicted to gambling, prostitution and alcohol too.

People who are addicted, will have a disability, that's also true, just as with the above.

BUT, the government criminalisation makes ALL THAT SUFFERING WORSE.

It creates crime -- both by users and producers. Just as alcohol prohibition created crime. It makes the drugs more dangerous, just as alcohol prohibition made alcohol more dangerous. Enforcement falls more on the poor than the rich, just as with alcohol prohibition.

As for meth being a result of the War On Drugs:

It has frequently been observed that drug prohibition tends to drive out the weaker and milder forms of drugs, and to increase the availability and use of stronger and more dangerous drugs (see, e.g., Brecher, 1972). This has been so often reported that many analysts speak of it as an "iron law" of drug prohibition. This "law" holds because milder drugs are usually bulkier, harder to hide and smuggle, and less remunerative. People involved in the illicit drug business therefore frequently find it in their interest to do business in the more compact and potent substances. For example, current interdiction efforts are most successful at capturing boats carrying many large bales of marijuana; therefore, many drug smugglers have turned to smuggling cocaine or heroin because it is easier and far more lucrative than smuggling marijuana. (see Murphy, Waldorf, and Reinarman, 1991).

This "law" of drug prohibition captures what happened during alcohol prohibition. The major effect of the Eighteenth Amendment was to dramatically reduce beer drinking (and therefore total alcohol consumption). At the same time, prohibition increased consumption of hard liquor (especially among the middle class). The fashionableness of the martini and other mixed drinks among the middle class is in part a historical legacy of prohibition, when criminalization made hard liquor the most available form of beverage alcohol.

Meth, can be produced in a kitchen, or even the boot of a car, it doesn't have to be imported from columbia. Its not as good (from a user's perspective) as cocaine, but it'll do if coke isn't available -- its just a lot more dangerous.

Now, to stop meth, pseudoephedrine is getting harder to obtain, right? Therefore meth is getting harder to make, right? Imagine you are talking to someone who knows there's a meth substitute being produced TODAY that doesn't use pseudoephedrine but is more deadly and at least as addictive as meth. What do you think the outcome is going to be?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

maybe we can make progress on this point then (none / 0) (#327)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:11:00 PM EST

a millionaire addicted to drugs: is his life better or worse than a homeless man NOT addicted to drugs?

the point being, the crux of your argument seems to be that an addict, provided all the high quality safe drugs he wants, without any economic considerations, will therefore not suffer

well, we have such people already in existence: rich addicts. what is their quality of life?

heh

see my thesis (ie, reality), is that the addiction itself is the suffering. you seem to think that an addict will do fine if the government didn't make their supply lines so tenuous and unsafe and crime ridden. which is mind blowing. because once you are an addict, that's the suffering right there. all of the rest of your suffering is minor in the eyes of the addict, which are transfixed on one and only one detail: MORE HEROIN (zombification)

the whole point of HARM REDUCTION then is to reduce the number of addicts. you do that by cracking down on the marketplace. doesn't mean they can't get the drug, but it makes it a lot harder. WHICH MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF ADDICTS

see, i can get a rocket launcher if i really wanted one. but it's a lot harder to get since it is illegal. likewise, with heroin, i have to jump through more hoops to get it than if it were legal. the effects are multifold:

  1. the marketplace is driven into organized crime
  2. the lives of addicts are unchanged (they are already suffering darling: getting their drug doesn't decrease it, it just sends it into new cycles of brief ecstacy then soulnumbing pain: the essential suffering of addiction you don't seem to understand)
  3. the number of new addicts decreases

point #1 is more important than point #3 for something mildly addicting: alcohol for instance

but point #1 is less important than point #3 for something greatly addicting, like heroin

which i've said before to you, about 10 different ways

and yet you still don't fucking understand how the addiction changes everything

addiction. it's a concept your mind just can't digest


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Please stop redefining Harm Reduction (none / 0) (#328)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:07:45 PM EST

Please update wikipedia's definition of Harm Reduction if you think the main aim is to reduce the number of addicts. It sometimes happens as a result, but it is not the point.

Number 3 is simply not true... People didn't drink less during prohibition -- less alcohol was produced, but people drank the strongest available. Hard liquor usage DECREASED AFTER prohibition was repealed.

Similarly, the Lancet study, that I pointed out earlier, showed, compared to other countries, that less young people got involved in heroin --- the PERCEPTION of heroin changed.

I think people would also progress from meth to cocaine, then perhaps even to coca leaf, should these all be obtainable.

Your #2 was also wrong -- the high when its available, and the lows when it isn't is closely related to 'Random Reinforcement' -- Which is MUCH more addictive than constant supply, its why one arm bandit gambling machines are so addictive. Constant clean supply means the user doesn't dose up in big hits and then go without later.

The government does allow the NHS to prescribe heroin to a few hundred addicts who have special medical needs. Dr Froggatt talks to Erin O'Mara, who has been prescribed heroin for the last year. It has enabled her to turn her life around; safe in the knowledge she can have as much heroin as she wants, rather than taking more, Erin is gradually decreasing her intake.

But there is another way. In the European countries where heroin is available legally, drug addiction has dropped radically. Fifteen years ago Switzerland had one of the highest rates of drug addiction and Aids in Europe. But in a radical change to the drugs laws, heroin use was decriminalised and the drug became available on prescription. The results have been astonishing. Addiction has dropped by a massive ninety per cent - with an eighty per cent drop in new users - and drug crime and deaths have also fallen dramatically. -- Dr Clive Froggatt - Heroin on the NHS

Dr Froggatt was once considered the most powerful medical doctor in the UK - He should be your model of someone who gets a true clean constant supply of heroin - he didn't fall, lose his job, try to kill himself, or any of the other things you would expect from heroin use - he lost his job because he was caught making false scripts for it, but this is not suffering caused by the drug.

Its very similar to the Netherlands and their very open and liberal views on sex, with prostitutes in windows all across the country -- Your thinking would presuppose that they would have huge teenage pregnancy problems.

Finally, the difference between all these drugs and rocket launchers is that when you use these drugs, you harm yourself, when you use a rocket launcher, you harm me. My principles are based on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

see that just blows my mind about you (none / 0) (#329)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:39:24 AM EST

you consistently believe that the use of heroin, cocaine, and meth only effects yourself. ask yourself this: WHY does society disapprove of these drugs? just because society likes to be mean and control people for no reason?

hardly: because society knows, most people know (and you don't know), that the use of heroin, cocaine or meth leads to crippled individuals whom society then must take care of. you are HONESTLY going to tell me that access should be free to these drugs and... drum roll please... less people are going to be hooked? your bullshit psychology about the perception of a drug versus the cold hard scientific facts about the hardcore highly addictive drugs: gee i wonder which is the more powerful force? lack of trendy street cred or biochemical hooks into the brain that defeats all willpower? HA!

and you have a nice anecdote about some doctor who uses heroin successfully and has a a full family life, a full job life, plays squash on the weekend, helps his neighbor rake leaves, helps his kids with their homework, and is a really nice tipper

...so far

i can show you a guy who speeds 120 mph on the highway all the time and has never crashed

...yet

so therefore, because of this VERY RARE ABERRATION FROM OUR TYPICAL EXPERIENCE WITH HUMANS USING HARDOCRE DRUGS, we should legalize them

well, that guy can speed 120 mph... so everyone should be able to speed!

and accidents will go down!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you are HONESTLY going to tell me that heroin, cocaine, and meth can be used by people and it will NOT effect their lives AT ALL in a detrimental way that society must pick up the pieces JUST BECAUSE there are harm reduction programs?

REALLY??!!

and you are HONESTLY going to tell me that just because heroin loses street cred, and that coca leaf is freely available, people are going to take less heroin, and switch form crack and meth to sipping coca leaf tea

REALLY??!!

what fucking bubble boy life do you lead exactly?

what a fucking cotton candy rose colored glasses deluded point of view you have on human nature and highly addictive drugs

you're a piece of work son

you're IGNORANT about the TRULY UGLY NATURE of the subject matter you speak of

you're just plain ignorant, really


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You should really read John Stuart Mill's Essay (none / 0) (#330)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:47:55 AM EST

If you don't you won't get my point.

In fact, I take back my words, and say that people DO take these drugs because they are illegal. Worst of all, its those with the most character and the strongest individualistic people that will throw themselves on these drugs.

Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendancy which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penalties which cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals, in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and frustrate the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped authority, and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins;

Read On Liberty, then get back to me, otherwise you will never understand.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

"hi, i'm going to misinterpret some poor (none / 0) (#331)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:45:13 AM EST

bloke, take him out of context, and if you don't do the same, you'll never understand"

darling, i understand more than you. stuart mills probably understands more than both of us. but between you and i, i at least understand the idea of taking a concept out of context. stuart mills is a brilliant man. and what he writes doesn't support your ideas on drugs in the least

(sigh)

we're talking about ADDICTIVE DRUGS darling

"people DO take these drugs because they are illegal"

no darling, people take these drugs because THEY ARE ADDICTIVE

do you fucking understand the concept moron?

no, talk to a wack job crack pot like you, and you will tell me that people have premarital sex because premarital sex is frowned upon by social conservatives in position of power

that's the exact same idiocy you come at me about drugs

people have sex BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDWIRED FOR IT

people get addicted to drugs BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDWIRED FOR IT

BIOCHEMISTRY MOTHERFUCKER

NOT FREE WILL

NOT LIBERTY

people TRY drugs because IT SEEMS INTERESTING AND THEY ARE YOUNG AND STUPID AND THINK THEY ARE INVINCIBLE

AND THEN THEY ARE ZOMBIFIED BY A CHEMICAL THAT DEFEATS THEIR FREE WILL

and you talk to me about liberty! about a chemical that DESTROYS liberty!

you simply do NOT understand what addiciton is

that's all that is going on here you moronic fruitcake

you honestly think will power is stronger than biochemistry

you quote stuart mills at me and think it supports your bullshit!

you're hilarious!

we're talking about HIGHLY ADDICTIVE DRUGS

RIGHT MORON?

pfffffffffft


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oh shit buddy, that's TOTAL FAIL on your side (none / 0) (#332)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:39 AM EST

No one takes the first hit because a drug is addictive, please don't be so stupid.

Again, in the frequent case of a man who causes grief to his family by addiction to bad habits, he deserves reproach for his unkindness or ingratitude; but so he may for cultivating habits not in themselves vicious, if they are painful to those with whom he passes his life, or who from personal ties are dependent on him for their comfort

...

On the other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which are essentially questions of liberty; such as the Maine Law, already touched upon; the prohibition of the importation of opium into China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.

You just LOST bigtime. You are unqualified to argue, you have not read Mill, or worse, totally failed to understand it... If you can't read, you are unworthy to debate.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i'm not going to debate mills (none / 0) (#333)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:22:48 PM EST

or rather, your stilted interpretation of him

i'm going to debate you

if you think you've won the argument because you say "here's an author i like. read him and come to the exact same out of context conclusions i have or you've lost the debate" then you've won the argument

where the argument is you licking your own asshole

if you want to exchange ideas with me, whcih is what i thought a debate was, then fine. if you want to say "read this and come to the same conclusion or you've lost" then you're just a self-involved sphincter

so let me ask you this, skipping over your enormous strawman: that first desire to take drugs. it's not because you're young, stupid, curious, and think you're invincible?

it's because the "man" is oppressive so the only way to fight back is to do yourself harm?

that's what you really believe?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No retard, I gave you the chance to read Mill's (none / 0) (#334)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:43:13 PM EST

two years ago... Its a very short essay, 5 chapters of about 20 paragraphs each... Only a moron like yourself would be unable to read that in under two years.

Like I said, everything from the "OMG its likes speeding at 120MPH" to, "its addictive, you OWE your girlfriend or you deserve to go to jail" are answered by Mills... You are arguing with him through me as a VERY POOR proxy of his ideas.

If something rightly concerns the individual, and society will punish him for it, then it becomes a mark of strength and courage to disobey it - this could easily explain the DECREASE in heroin usage in Switzerland.

Read Mills, and then argue with me, you don't have to agree with Mills, but you have to point out its contradictions or errors if you want to make headway.

It shouldn't take you more than two hours to read, but I guess that's beyond a troll's ability. For now, you lose.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

a debate is not a directed reading (none / 0) (#335)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:58:05 PM EST

a debate is "let me explain to you an idea" and then you explain it

if you need to say "go read that" then you are at best lazy, and at worst wrong about the ideas you think you are projecting

and, in fact, in this case, you ARE wrong. as mills is all about liberty. whereby it is ok to do something if it doesn't hurt somebody else. for example, some would frown mightily on gay sex. but if gay sex happens in the privacy of your own bedroom, who the fuck cares?

that's what mills is all about. and that's why i appreciate mills, that's why i celebrate and agree with mills

and now you come at me like "look at what mills says!" like a. an appeal to authority is supposed to make up for an appeal to reason, b. that you even understand what the poor bloke actually says, c. that you think you are telling me something i don't already know and have not already incorporating into my argument

in other words, proving yourself to be arrogant and stupid 3 different ways

darling, mills supports MY point of view. you are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others

HARD DRUG USE HARMS OTHERS MORON

see, where you fail friend, is you think that if you take heroin, or cocaine, or meth in the privacy of your own home, that you aren't hurting anyone else

INSTANT FAIL

i have the perfect right to go 120 mph if i want in the privacy of my own car, i'm not hurting anyone else. freedom! liberty!

except that, i am increasing my chances of crashing beyond reasonable limits.... well so what? i only kill myself if i crash

except you can kill other people on the road. that risk is unacceptable. therefore, you can't speed

speed limits: in line with mill's ideas about liberty and harming others

mills does not support the speeder

with me so far? good

mills does support the alcohol drinker or the cannabis user: the risk he is placing others in is well within reason

but mills does NOT support the heroin/ coke/ meth user: the risk he is placing others in (ie, society's pretty certain burden to eventually have to take care of you because now you are useless drug addict) is TOO HIGH

now go ahead and attack that via your predictable routes

all of which simply demonstrating you do not understand the highly addictive nature of heroin/ coke/ meth

"BUT BUT BUT I KNOW SOME GUY WHO SHOOTS DOPE ALL THE TIME AND HE'S A FAMILY HAVING JOB HOLDING GREAT GUY WHO ALSO NEVER SPITS ON THE GROUND OR JAYWALKS"

well that guy sounds fabulous

and incredibly rare

i know some race car drivers

therefore there should be no speed limits?

get it yet motherfucker?

please, throw some more mills at me

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HIM

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

TOTAL UTTER FUCKING COMPLETE FAILURE (none / 0) (#336)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:15:10 PM EST

society's pretty certain burden to eventually have to take care of you because now you are useless drug addict

But with regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom. If grown persons are to be punished for not taking proper care of themselves, I would rather it were for their own sake, than under pretence of preventing them from impairing their capacity of rendering to society benefits which society does not pretend it has a right to exact.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

A.D.D.I.C.T.I.O.N. (none / 0) (#337)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:30:56 PM EST

motherfucker, do you speak it?

"But with regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom. If grown persons are to be punished for not taking proper care of themselves, I would rather it were for their own sake, than under pretence of preventing them from impairing their capacity of rendering to society benefits which society does not pretend it has a right to exact."

that's a nice bundle of legalese, that rightly explains why two gay people should be allowed to fuck

it exaplins why someone can drink and smoke cannabis

BUT NOT HEROIN, COKE, OR METH

why???!!!

how can i possibly insist the defense of the use of these 3 drugs somehow is beyond mill's insights?

A
D
D
I
C
T
I
O
N

potential

IS TOO HIGH

i can drive at 60 mph on a modern highway. i can't drive 100 mph on a modern highway because THE POTENTIAL FOR DANGER TOO OTHERS IS TOO HIGH

DO. YOU. FUCKING. UNDERSTAND. THE. CONCEPT.

WHY. DO. YOU. THINK. YOU. CAN. TALK. ABOUT. HEROIN/ COKE/ METH WITH MILLS IN MIND BUT NOT ADDICTION

ADDICTION MOTHERFUCKER

DO YOU SPEAK IT?

so therefore, everyone can speed


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you haven't read it, its obvious you haven't (none / 0) (#338)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:43:04 PM EST

You are failing, over and over again.

What is opium? Is that an acceptable drug in your mind? Yet he specifically references it.

Speeding harms others.

What risk to others does someone with a constant supply of heroin pose?

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

CTS, if you won't read something that I offer up in evidence for our debate, our debate has ended, and you lose through sheer laziness.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

this is the sum total of your use of mills: (none / 0) (#339)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:54:40 PM EST

mills:

it is ok to speed your car if you are on a private racetrack

your belief:

it is ok to speed your car

what you are saying to me:

see? mills says it is ok to speed your car

wtf??!!

hey, buddy, CONTEXT

do you UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT

i am going to say it is ok to shoot anyone i want to with a gun because the law of the land says it is ok to use violent force to protect myself from harm

well, i'm wrong, because i can use violent force only under certain circumstances, but i am saying i can use it under any circumstances, and i am saying the law of the land supports me

i am ignoring the CONTEXT in which using a gun is appropriate, and i am saying the wording of the law that mentions the CONTEXT supports me, even though i ignore the CONTEXT

in the same way, you say mills supports your point of view. yeah, if you ignore that nice little part about doing no harm to others. in other words, mills doesn't support you at all

in other words, you use mills only because

YOU FUCKIGN DON'T UNDERSTAND ADDICTION

you think mills supports you, because in your empty pumpkinhead, ADDICTION DOESN'T EXIST

on your empty pumpkinhead, yes, mills does support you!

but in REALITY, where ADDICTION EXISTS, mills is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

zzzzzzzzzzz


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LOSE AGAIN (none / 0) (#340)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 01:59:46 PM EST

speeding (on public roads) can be calculated to cause harm to others. Very simple.

Mills says that withholding OPIUM decreases the liberty of the buyer.

Addiction is suffered by the individual himself.

I just reread mills as soon as I mentioned it... There is no CONTEXT here -- it is the message of the total of itself.

Ignorance is Strength to the troll, amirite? Heaven forbid you might learn something.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

see, you continually blow my mind (none / 0) (#341)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:14:10 PM EST

so you tell me:

  1. heroin is highly addictive
  2. when addicted, the harm done is only to the user, not society

is that what are honestly telling me?

have i misrepresented you in 1 or 2 above?

my mind: BOOM

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Please tell me (none / 0) (#342)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:18:41 PM EST

what direct harm someone addicted and supplied with heroin does to society.

I'm all ears.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

that society (none / 0) (#343)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:26:46 PM EST

has to supply him

duh


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What supply him with heroin? (none / 0) (#344)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:32:17 PM EST

Are you mad? Society supplies him IN SPITE of the laws.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
that's pretty amazing (none / 0) (#345)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:37:57 PM EST

"society" goes from a bunch of tut tutting victorian prudes in one moment to the mafia underbelly of it in one quick slide of the thread. nice trick there wilbur

i think you want the government to supply heroin for free no?

try to run away little rat, the spot light has got you:

society does not owe you heroin just because you exist

careful in your wording now, MILLS MIGHT GET ANGRY!

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OMG, are you like three different people, do you (none / 0) (#346)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:44:10 PM EST

have some sort of split personality disorder, or do you just have a really hard time reading?

i think you want the government to supply heroin for free no?

Remember I said about the markup?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

MILLS IS ANGRY (none / 0) (#347)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:52:14 PM EST

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT FILTHY LUCRE INTERFERE WITH YOUR ESSENTIAL LIBERTY, ESPECIALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL LIBERTY: ACCESS TO HEROIN! (snicker)

run little rat, scamper away:

when you use heroin, you imperil your ability to generate the filthy lucre needed for more heroin. therefore, you cannot use heroin without imposing on society. society does not owe you heroin. therefore, society has the right to limit your access to heroin, because your use of heroin DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A VACCUUM OF NO HARM TO OTHERS

remember, the essential argument of mills and liberty?

...which doesn't apply to heroin? because you harm others?

try to run away little rat, the lights are closing in

go ahead, dismantle the notion that heroin use hurts others. go for it. i salute your brave quest to smash your face into a brick wall (snicker)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LOSE AGAIN (none / 0) (#348)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:56:59 PM EST

Please read mills my sweetheart, then you will be fit to debate, it may even help your insy bitsy tiny winy narrow little mind grow a bit.

If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance. If the resources which ought to have been devoted to them, had been diverted from them for the most prudent investment, the moral culpability would have been the same.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

my god (none / 0) (#349)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:05:18 PM EST

so if i speed and kill someone, then damages can be taken from me

well no shit sherlock

what, are you suggesting because no daamge is done until the accident that society can't make laws against speeding?!

is that what you are honestly putting forward here?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Again, please, you are showing total failuretude (none / 0) (#350)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:18:28 PM EST

You only have to spend about two hours reading... Its not that fucking hard, are you retarded or simple minded or something?

what, are you suggesting because no daamge is done until the accident that society can't make laws against speeding?!

To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.

...

The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person's life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit.

I think he saw you coming CTS. LOL

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

dude, that applies to you (none / 0) (#351)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:24:55 PM EST

"The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person's life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. "

i couldn't have described your inability to understand how addiction impacts society and others better than those words

"To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others."

yes: i calculate that you become an addict who requires government hand outs by using heroin

zzz

mills supports me dude, and destroys your pov

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

STOP BEING A RETARD, AT LEAST READ MILLS (none / 0) (#352)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:33:55 PM EST

The government hand outs are the voluntary choice society makes.

Do you suppose that a drug addict, the lazy, gamblers, base jumpers and those who lose everything through the most prudent of investments deserve no welfare.

mills supports me dude, and destroys your pov
Are you saying mills would be against the sale of opium?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

welfare is for those who need money (none / 0) (#353)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:09:38 PM EST

which we all need to live in contemporary society. for example, to buy food and rent shelter. to deny someone the right to live (food, housing) is cruel and unusual punishment

but no one NEEDS hard core addictive drugs darling. to deny someone such drugs is to deny something nonessential to living your life

smacking you down is just too easy

...

"Are you saying mills would be against the sale of opium?"

here's your glorious mills at his "best":

"The British traders in India in the 18th and 19th century interwove a complex pattern of profits, politics, theft and deception. The East India Company came to be a template for later mega-companies. The East India Company, and those that served it, procured what ever they could by whatever foul means possible. Whatever they could ship, sell, barter or purloin was fair game. Together with the political elite that ran India at the time, they conspired to, without pause or apology, to make politics pay. This was seen as good and healthy, eventually it was given the status of being sacred, by some. Corruption, peddling influence, the lining of pockets by local elites and the steady build up of military strength - in the name of progress and a better life for all - became an alibi for imperialism through trade. John Stuart Mills thought the British East India Company one of the most "beneficent" creations known to mankind"

http://muslimsinkenya.wordpress.com/

there's mills as a neocon imperialist

and here he is in his own words on the topic:

"A correct estimate of the relation which should subsist between governors and governed, does not require the electors to consent to be represented by one who intends to govern them in opposition to their fundamental convictions. If they avail themselves of his capacities of useful service in other respects, at a time when the points on which he is vitally at issue with them are not likely to be mooted, they are justified in dismissing him at the first moment when a question arises involving these, and on which there is not so assured a majority for what they deem right as to make the dissenting voice of that particular individual unimportant. Thus (I mention names to illustrate my meaning, not for any personal application) the opinions supposed to be entertained by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright on resistance to foreign aggression might be overlooked during the Crimean War,1 when there was an overwhelming national feeling on the contrary side, and might yet very properly lead to their rejection by the electors at the time of the Chinese quarrel2 (though in itself a more doubtful question), because it was then for some time a moot point whether their view of the case might not prevail."

"2 [Mill refers to the Opium Wars (1839-44, 1856-60) by which Britain compelled the Chinese to admit British opium traders.]"

http://www.ditext.com/mill/rg/chapter12.html

there's mills basically saying "who cares what the people think, onward with the opium wars and forcing opium trade on the chinese and using the creation of addicts as a weapon against a foreign society". so this is pretty funny, considering that your glorious mills is basically the original neocon

mills had wonderful things to say on the subject of individual liberty. but in the arena of opium, what he had to say was in particular pointed at the opium trade itself, from the point of view of the drug trading mafia (the british)

gw bush, karl rove, dick cheney, and john stuart mills would get along splendidly. so he might also appreciate the elements who grow the poppies in afghanistan to feed the addicts in the decadent morally bankrupt west to raise the money to bomb the west. today's afghanistan: the opium wars, waged on the british. irony.

which i don't think is the detail about opium and mills you were intending to bring to light, but was pretty funny finding out. so thanks for that

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And yet, in On Liberty, (none / 0) (#354)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:37:51 PM EST

he argues against use of fraud, deception, force, corruption, unfair advantage, etc, in the business of trade, and that this is rightfully the rule of government to intervene and punish. Hence he would not support the tactics of the East India Trading Company, no matter what some idiot blogger says.

You have gone from saying, Mills is a great man who would not support the sale of addictive substances to saying he is someone who would force addictive substances on others...

And yet, this does not actually say that he supports the war against the Chinese, "(though in itself a more doubtful question)", simply that in general, and especially in time of war, the electorate should defer to the elected.

but was pretty funny finding out
And I though you said you knew more about Mills than I did. LOL

On Liberty outlines the limits the elected should keep their laws within.

Read On Liberty, you are still failing big time.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

was that a response? (none / 0) (#355)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:45:14 PM EST

i didn't see anything of substance there, a lot chest thumping and shirking of the points

an idiot blogger didn't say anything about mills, mills defended the imperialist neocon use of heorin addiction as a weapon agains thte chinese in his own words

(oh you didn't catch that huh? drug addiction as a weapon of war to weaken the enemy's society? so strange: i thought abject drug addiction was the ultimate expression of personal liberty... teehee)

read the quote directly from mills, in his own words, again, quoted above where he refers to the "chinese question"

as for how wonderful mills is in my eyes, or how much or little i know about him: mills is a human being, not a god, he makes mistakes, and i certainly don't know all there is to know about mills, nor did i ever imply that. all i said was that what mills conception of liberty is, supports my pov more than it supports yours

but nice desperate scramble on your part, right down to the hollow pronouncement i'm failing

all i see is a little rat in the lair of a great troll, with less and less rope, perhaps enough to hang himself with?

AND I'M HUNGRY

COME PREY, GET SWALLOWED UP COMPLETELY

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHA, U R STUPID (none / 0) (#356)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:55:57 PM EST

He doesn't say that, at least I cannot find such a statement.

He says that the governed must defer to the government.

all i said was that what mills conception of liberty is, supports my pov more than it supports yours
It quite simply doesn't... I agree he is no God, but his message in 'On Liberty' quite clearly supports my pov. If you don't read it, you can't argue it.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so you're great champion of personal liberty (none / 0) (#357)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:03:30 PM EST

is saying what?

"He says that the governed must defer to the government"

ok, well the government says heroin is bbbbad

so defer, asswipe, in the name of your hero of personal liberty

what a moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And then, in On Liberty (none / 0) (#358)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:07:40 PM EST

He says that this is NOT RIGHTLY the purview of the government. He also says that the government should not suppress free speech.

Do you think that the governed should defer to the government when they suppress free speech?

Why can't you just take the time to read, and then argue something SENSIBLY WITH ME?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

is this an argument on hard drug use? (none / 0) (#359)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:21:30 PM EST

or a class reading project?

do you think it is a valid rhetorical approach to say to someone to read something and get back to you?

well, apparently your reading syllabus isn't very good, that your ideas are so weak you can't even express them yourself! (snicker)

dude: if you are so impressed with the ideas of john stuart mills, which you should be, as his ideas are impressive, then you should also understand them enough to be able to enunciate them to me in your own words, to convince me of the strength of your argument

if you can't do that, then your argument and your conception of it must not be very good now is it?

this is what our argument has degenerated into:

me: "why can't you understand how addiction changes your concpetion of the issue?"
you: "read john stuart mills and all will be clear"
me: "what about john stuart mills is it that you think supports your ideas?"
you: "read john stuart mills and all will be clear"

...

ad nauseum

yeah: all is clear to me: you can't effectively argue your point of view anymore. you've lost

please, by all means, replay to this comment with some variation of "read john stuart mills and all will be clear"

you lose sucka. not because i say so. but just because of the complete bankruptcy of your own rhetoric:

"read john stuart mills and all will be clear"

zzz

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

As I said, I am but a poor proxy to the ideas (none / 0) (#360)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:36:06 PM EST

represented therein.

I can argue till the cows come home, and in fact have crushed you with quotes from it. (Amongst other arguments).

The fact is, all your arguments are countered in Mills Essay, its as if he read you, went back in time, and wrote an essay showing you to be a complete asshat.

I will gladly continue to argue with you, but not if you cannot read a simple essay... It does no good to argue with someone who remains wilfully ignorant. Wilful ignorance is worse than stupidity -- a stupid person has no redeemable fault.

but let me fill you in on the crux:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

You are not protecting yourself from harm that someone may or may not end up on welfare, which is the crux of your argument it seems. The fact that society deems it fair and just to offer welfare cannot be used as an excuse to bar certain behaviours (unless you want to include prudent investments, base jumping, skiing, or any other actions that can be calculated to lead to a person using welfare).

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i love that quote (none / 0) (#361)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:39:43 PM EST

not least of which because it argues against heroin, cocaine, meth

because using these drugs impinges on the rights and freedoms of others

why do you think that quote is some sort of banishment of my argument? all i see when i read those words is reaffirmation!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That is because you remain wilfuly ignorant. (none / 0) (#362)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:52:48 PM EST

The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person's life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connexions, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burthen on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good. Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead.

And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government? If gambling, or drunkenness, or incontinence, or idleness, or uncleanliness, are as injurious to happiness, and as great a hindrance to improvement, as many or most of the acts prohibited by law, why (it may be asked) should not law, so far as is consistent with practicability and social convenience, endeavour to repress these also? And as a supplement to the unavoidable imperfections of law, ought not opinion at least to organize a powerful police against these vices, and visit rigidly with social penalties those who are known to practise them? There is no question here (it may be said) about restricting individuality, or impeding the trial of new and original experiments in living. The only things it is sought to prevent are things which have been tried and condemned from the beginning of the world until now; things which experience has shown not to be useful or suitable to any person's individuality. There must be some length of time and amount of experience, after which a moral or prudential truth may be regarded as established: and it is merely desired to prevent generation after generation from falling over the same precipice which has been fatal to their predecessors.



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i'm totally confused (none / 0) (#363)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:22:35 AM EST

"The only things it is sought to prevent are things which have been tried and condemned from the beginning of the world until now; things which experience has shown not to be useful or suitable to any person's individuality. There must be some length of time and amount of experience, after which a moral or prudential truth may be regarded as established: and it is merely desired to prevent generation after generation from falling over the same precipice which has been fatal to their predecessors."

i can't think of a better quote in the support of the outlawing of heroin

ok, who killed procrasti and replaced him with nancy reagan?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#364)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 03:28:25 AM EST

OMFG...

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
PS: I assume you have read On Liberty now (none / 0) (#365)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:35:57 AM EST

and don't need to be told the fallacy of this argument?

(Being that the quote was from On Liberty, showing the example arguments people might use to refuse that no one can do something to themselves without causing harm to others, not sure if you noticed that - of course the rest of the essay goes on to destroy these)

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i can appreciate both sides of the argument (none / 0) (#366)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:22:43 PM EST

i'm just perplexed at you using a quote which supports my pov

read what i quoted again carefully, and tell me where i am wrong


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The quote is Mills basically saying (none / 0) (#367)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:28:07 AM EST

Many people won't admit that people can do stuff bad to themselves without hurting others, here are the arguments they are likely to use. You have to read the rest of Mills to see why you are wrong, but I'll try to do my best.

In this case, this particular argument, you think supports outlawing heroin -- also supports outlawing pornography, tobacco, premarital sex, gay sex, gay marriage, marijuana, atheism, interracial marriage, sodomy, oral sex, adultery, dancing, rock and roll, alcohol, beef and pork. It even supports the actions of the Spanish Inquisition.

This argument admits no harm to anyone but the person themselves - so it completely fails the harm to others test anyway.

Finally, if you have no better reason to outlaw something, other than you are right and the other is wrong, (in cases where the harm falls only on the person who is making the consideration), then you have no right to complain if any of the above things are outlawed by a tolerable majority to you.

These are just part of the reasons this argument is wrong, but all you need to do is read Mills and see for yourself.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

this is our argument right now in a nutshell (none / 0) (#368)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:28:30 AM EST

me: "i think that gay marriage is ok"

you: "WHY DO YOU SUPPORT NECROPHILIAC PEDOPHILIA!"

in other words, you are trying to link my approbation of heroin with strictures on anything, by anyone in the world, for whatever reason

pfffffffft. nice try son

you not only misrepresents what i am saying, you also misrepresents what mills is saying. in short, you are being intellectually dishonest (or you're just stupid, and you don't really understand mills or me)

because if you think what you wrote above is a valid attack on what i am saying, or represents what mills is saying

  1. you haven't been listening to me at all, and i'm arguing with a bedpost, deaf and dumb
  2. you have no idea what mills represents, you have a simpleton's greatly reduced and sloganistic dim understanding of mills


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No you failfuck (none / 0) (#369)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:57:08 AM EST

Mills argues EXACTLY this, if you just fucking bother to read it.

He says, Many people will refuse to admit that people can cause harm to themselves without causing harm to others. Here are the arguments they use, including, 'We don't want to outlaw anything except which has caused generation after generation to fall off a precipice'.

He then goes onto say, what generation ever got this fucking right? Even if they got it right, when do they stop there? There are groups of people and societies today who would use this to outlaw gambling, atheism, adultery, pork and alcohol. Even the Spanish Inquisition wanted to stop heresy for this fucking reason --- Mills even points these examples out.

JUST FUCKING READ HIS ARGUMENT AND TELL ME THIS ISN'T THE CASE.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, more of the same, you're a broken record (none / 0) (#370)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:29:21 AM EST

why do you use an appeal to authority in your arguments?

mills is a brilliant man. ok, we agree. so why don't you articulate in your own words the ideas that makes mills so brilliant?

you rail about social conservatives wanting to control all behavior. fine

THAT'S NOT MY FUCKING ARGUMENT THOUGH MORON

and it's funny you rail about social conservatives, because in your own way, here you are, coming at me, saying "look, it's in the bible, so there, end of discussion!" except your version of that is "mills said so so there!"

well, what would i say to the social conservative?

i would say: what does the bible actually say- in your own words? why do you think the bible actually supports what you think?

so guess what i say to you darling?

what did mills says exactly, in your own words?

and why do you think it supports your argument against me?

right now, you can't articulate that in your own words, using mills ideas. instead, you vomit mill's words at me:

  1. as if it actually supports your beliefs
  2. as if its applicable to the argument
  3. as if you understand it
  4. as if it defeats my pov

and i'm the failfuck

pfffffft

here is a small clue for you:

the idea that other people control other people's behavior for bad reasons (a la mills) does not attack what i am saying

because i am CERTAIN that heroin use affects other people in concrete and demonstrable ways

you can utterly defeat me, shut me up forever, if you can prove to me that person a can go into private room b, shoot heroin, and NEVER LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES FOR DOING THAT

and i'll prove to you that using mills against me is fruitless and inapplicable: a social conservative might say that the spread of AIDS is due to gay sex, so let's regulate that. in fact, i'll bolster my mills-friendly credentials with a story in which i pillory a homophobic asshole for doing that

i get mills son. i understand him completely. mills os on my side

well, why can't we stop gay sex in order to save people from AIDS? BECAUSE AIDS ISN'T FROM GAY SEX, IT'S FROM A VIRUS

in other words, the human behavior is not the problem, the virus is

see? mills friendly attitude on my part

so how do we defeat AIDS?

  1. USE A CONDOM
  2. DEVELOP A CURE/ VACCINE

we don't stop gays from having sex. see how mills friendly i am?

so: two guys a can go into private room b, use a condom, and NEVER LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES FOR DOING THAT

veyr mills friendly, see that?

now, heroin:

the crux of mills argument, which i understand (you don't) is that HUMAN BEHAVIOR is not the problem

YOU THINK that my problem is with people being destructive and negative should be outlawed. no, nothing wrong with asocial behavior in the privacy of your own home. i am not trying to change human behavior. i am in line with mills. and i am the person you think i am (social conservative asshole)

the problem is: THE HEROIN

NOT THE HUMAN BEHAVIOR

person a can't go into private room b, shoot heroin, and NEVER LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES FOR DOING THAT

because of the HEROIN, not the HUMAN BEHAVIOR

get it?

so, just as with AIDS, you don't blame people, you blame (like blaming the virus) THE DRUG

YOU FIGHT HEROIN

do you see me?

again, dismantle these words of mine, and you will have destroyed my argument forever: when you shoot heroin, your risk of addiction is too high, limiting other people's lives unacceptable

defeat that notion, ADDICTION (show me a choice mills quote on that, not a choice mills quote on the fallacy of limiting human behavior), and you defeat me

ADDICTION MOTHERFUCKER

DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE CONCEPT DEFEATS YOUR IDIOCY?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You don't understand shit about mills (none / 0) (#371)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:09:58 AM EST

There is no argument you are making that an addict can use heroin and not harm someone else. Even if you do, Mills argues that the harm itself should be punished, not whatever contingent bought that person to cause that harm.

Dr Clive Froggat is a person who never harmed anyone else, but you say -- oh that's only one person, that doesn't invalidate my argument -- although he is about the only person so far who can actually get pure clean heroin.

Even still, Mills says exactly what I have been saying. You just go, nah ah, but you are clearly wrong, and proven time and time again you haven't read a simple fucking five page essay.

What you are talking about invariably leads to what Mills calls, "The Tyranny of the Majority". Do you deny that there are people out there today who would claim that gay sex serves no-one's individuality and is responsible for leading generation after generation off a precipice, and if they were in the majority, then via the same reasoning, this should be outlawed to? (Note, I don't give a fuck what you think about gay sex - it has nothing to do with AIDS either moron, the fact is, people believe this shit.)

As for the "I am Certain" argument, let me quote Mill's again:

The existing generation is master both of the training and the entire circumstances of the generation to come; it cannot indeed make them perfectly wise and good, because it is itself so lamentably deficient in goodness and wisdom; and its best efforts are not always, in individual cases, its most successful ones; but it is perfectly well able to make the rising generation, as a whole, as good as, and a little better than, itself. If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences

...

Would they not, with considerable peremptoriness, desire these intrusively pious members of society to mind their own business? This is precisely what should be said to every government and every public, who have the pretension that no person shall enjoy any pleasure which they think wrong. But if the principle of the pretension be admitted, no one can reasonably object to its being acted on in the sense of the majority, or other preponderating power in the country; and all persons must be ready to conform to the idea of a Christian commonwealth, as understood by the early settlers in New England, if a religious profession similar to theirs should ever succeed in regaining its lost ground, as religions supposed to be declining have so often been known to do.

...

A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language: being nothing short of this--that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one's lips, it invades all the "social rights" attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

What part of ABSOLUTE does not make sense to you when Mills says:

In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

CTS, if you do not prove to me you have read On Liberty, I cannot help you further, I cannot alter your choice to remain wilfully ignorant and unworthy of debate. Either argue that he is wrong, or that heroin somehow is outside his reasoning (hint: it isn't).

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i have an insight into our argument (none / 0) (#372)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:54:02 AM EST

i think at the crux of our argument is a misunderstanding, and it drives us both forward: when you hear me wanting to control heroin, you hear me wanting to control human behavior

no, i have no problem with human behavior. i have problem with heroin. kind of like, i have no problem with gay sex, i have a problem with the aids virus. so i don't prosecute gay men, i prosecute a virus. so i don't prosecute lazy lay about nihilists, i prosecute heroin. got me?

mills is with me. human behavior is not the problem here. something BEYOND human behavior is

so you keep reaching for mills, but my argument is completely tangential to mills. i mean by all means, keep trumpeting mills. but if you actually want to argue with wha ti am actually saying you need to try a different tack ;-P

it is the injecting of something that defeats human behavior- a virus, a drug, that my argument centers on

what drives you angry about me is you put me in the same category as social conservatives who try to control other people out of fear. which i'm obviously not, but you think i am, because when i say "no to heroin" you hear me saying "no to human behavior". no, i'm only fighting a drug, not the behavior

put it this way: the addiction the drug creates changes human behavior in such a way that it defeats your own argument (you want to preserve human behavior from foreign influence. well, addiction is a worse imposition than governmental or societal tyranny)

so: why do you keep harping on mills? i try to understand why you think a line of reasoning that doesn't have anything to do with what i am saying is relevant. and i have come to the conclusion you're not arguing with what i am really saying

you want to take an argument about drugs, and turn it into an argument about controlling behavior

no darling. that's not the argument we're having here

or, i guess you could keep arguing that argument. but then you are arguing with yourself. you don't even understand what i am saying

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

By arguing about drugs you are arguing about human (none / 0) (#373)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:29:22 PM EST

behaviour. Humans may decide (of their own free will) to try heroin, but by making heroin illegal, you are saying, you are not master of your own decisions.

If heroin was legal, then it would be obvious to everyone that the problems of heroin are caused purely by heroin itself -- but as heroin is illegal, people may rightfully think that the problems of heroin are caused by its illegality.

People who take heroin will be seen as brave and courageous - as those of strength and vigour will not let another make decisions for them in areas that affect only themselves.

I am saying, that if you don't accept the right of a person to make their own mistakes, and to let those mistakes shine as an example to others, then you are a social conservative no matter what topic you choose to prohibit (where the harm falls only on the person whose actions are under consideration).

I am saying that if you accept the principle that a person shalt not because you are right and they are wrong, you have lost this argument against any other ill the majority may try to foster on you by the same reasoning (marijuana, alcohol, dancing, pork).

All I want is for you to read Mills, so you can at least understand the reasoning that a person has ABSOLUTE right to do with their property, body and mind as that person sees fit. (That's where Mills comes into an argument about heroin.) I don't expect you to agree with it, but then you can either tell me why Mill's might be wrong or else you might add Mill's arguments to your own when you fight for liberty.

I even agree, that heroin might be addictive and might destory a person, but I cannot think of this as a harm against anyone but the heroin user himself, even when it means he eventually falls upon the benevolence of his fellow creatures.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

philosophical catch-22 (none / 0) (#374)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:30:01 PM EST

By arguing about drugs you are arguing about human behaviour. Humans may decide (of their own free will) to try heroin, but by making heroin illegal, you are saying, you are not master of your own decisions.

this would be true if taking heroin allowed you to retain control of your free will. but by taking heroin, you become an addict. in effect, giving up your free will

so then we have an interesting philosophical question: do people have the free will to remove their own free will? in other words, do you have the right to commit suicide? (which addictive drug use is: slow motion suicide, suicide of the free will)

in other words: my position MAXIMIZES personal free will by preventing people from removing their own free will

your argument REDUCES free will... in the name of free will? you love mills, champion of personal liberty. and yet you use his words to promote a higly addictive drug, the most certian destroyer of personal liberty (a far more potent destroyer of personal liberty than any theocracy or fascist state or nosy social conservative voting bloc)

so how does it work out that, in the name of mills, you destroy that which mills holds most dear? the reason why is, you don't acknowledge the cold hard truth of addiction and heroin, ever

...and this is above and beyond the entire argument you always conveniently side step about addicts ruining other people's lives. of course that is what happens when people use an addictive drugs. of course, you will never admit to that blindingly obvious fact

If heroin was legal, then it would be obvious to everyone that the problems of heroin are caused purely by heroin itself -- but as heroin is illegal, people may rightfully think that the problems of heroin are caused by its illegality.

People who take heroin will be seen as brave and courageous - as those of strength and vigour will not let another make decisions for them in areas that affect only themselves.

incredibly retarded wishful magical thinking. none of that ever happens or would happen in reality. what you just wrote in those two paragraphs is like talking about cotton candy and unicorns, it is so retarded and preposterous. the statement that sunlight and rainbows comes out of my ass is the same level of validity as what you just wrote. keep dreaming moron

I am saying, that if you don't accept the right of a person to make their own mistakes, and to let those mistakes shine as an example to others, then you are a social conservative no matter what topic you choose to prohibit (where the harm falls only on the person whose actions are under consideration).

the already existing pile of junkies on the sidewalk isn't an example enough? but they are invalid example? i already know your retort: because the government policy put them there, not the heroin addiction

(jaw hangs open)

I am saying that if you accept the principle that a person shalt not because you are right and they are wrong, you have lost this argument against any other ill the majority may try to foster on you by the same reasoning (marijuana, alcohol, dancing, pork).

no, you aren't listening to what i've said, 100x already. you keep trying to plug me as a social conservative. because you think that my argument against heroin is like a social conservative's argument against marijuana. but i don't have the argument against heroin that you think i have: the heroin ADDICTION (the magic concept you never address) means that you are harming others (by becoming an addict they must care for)

4th time i will say it in this post: addiction, the magic concept you will of course totally ignore in anything you say in followup and have ever said. you magically and consistently deny that obvious truth, and how it completely changes your argument, rendering mills inapplicable (because the real issue here is not the issue you are talking about). your mind will of course, yet again, completely skip over addiciton, rendering it minor and inconsequential when addiciton looms huge on the issue of heroin, unlike alcohol, unlike marijuana, unlike dancing, pork etc

but you will continue to mills and social conservative.s because your mind will simply not acknowledge that the issue of addiction makes heroin a case unlike all of your examples, and all of mills examples

all of your words on the issue of heorin plicy, basically, is off topic. because you always, consistently completely censor out of your mind the overriding issue that makes heorin special: it's huge and easy addiction potential

All I want is for you to read Mills, so you can at least understand the reasoning that a person has ABSOLUTE right to do with their property, body and mind as that person sees fit. (That's where Mills comes into an argument about heroin.) I don't expect you to agree with it, but then you can either tell me why Mill's might be wrong or else you might add Mill's arguments to your own when you fight for liberty.

i understand mills completely. mills is on my side. it is you who cannot speak coherently on the issue, because you conveniently ignore the centrla issue with heroin: addiction

I even agree, that heroin might be addictive and might destory a person, but I cannot think of this as a harm against anyone but the heroin user himself, even when it means he eventually falls upon the benevolence of his fellow creatures.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

thank you for saying that. you realize that you have just made mills your enemy with that statement, right? ;-)

"even when it means he eventually falls upon the benevolence of his fellow creatures"

remember mills is all about its ok if it never hurts anyone else

now you are saying it hurts someone else

promptly placing your entire pov outside of anything mills says

which is what i've said to you all along

but you won't admit to it

you'll continue to gloss over the 800 pound gorilla in the room about

addiction my friend

if you can't propose an argument to me that doesn't address the HUGE ADDICTION POTENTIAL OF HEROIN

UNLIKE ALL OTHER SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE FOILS

THAT ROBS PEOPLE OF FREE WILL

then you have no arguemnt at all

because you completely and utterly fail to understand what addiciton is, how it defeats free will, and therefore renders mills inapplicable, and you a grade A fucking idiot


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

YOU FUCKING FAIL COMPLETLY (none / 0) (#375)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:28:26 PM EST

Yes, Mill's argues you have the right to destroy your freedom through addiction and I would also assume suicide. If you don't believe me, read this:

the prohibition of the importation of opium into China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.

Can you FUCKING READ ASSHOLE? Mills DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

If what you say is true about heroin, then by legalising it, we could all see the truth, and society would be freerer... This is what Mill's argues.

On Marijuana: Many doctors believe that it can exacerbate psychosis and even cause psychosis in people who would not otherwise get it but are susceptible to it. Are you going to argue now that Psychosis INCREASES that person's freedom? Of course it doesn't retard -- so if the majority argue against marijuana, then SUCK IT THE FUCK UP FUCKFACE. If, on the other hand, you live by the principle that a person may HARM THEMSELVES, then it doesn't matter that it may in fact harm the user.

As for being dependent on welfare (falling on the benevolence of his fellow creatures) being a harm to you or me, then ban or restrict welfare, for that is the harm, not the actions that might (OR MIGHT NOT) lead to it. Perhaps, as many will contend, marijuana makes you psychotic or lazy and more likely to end up on welfare, it is also rightfully prohibited. I don't consider feeding the unfortunate a harm.

Why the fuck can't you read one simple fucking essay, are you that fucking retarded? Evidence suggests you are.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you need a citation (none / 0) (#376)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:40:48 PM EST

you're probably quoting mills correctly, but you need to provide a link

since you can't argue for your own self

do you understand mill's ideas?

then why can't you put it into your own words?

why do you think an appeal to authority is superior to logic and reason?

so provide a link, and maybe i'll just go read mills, since i can't get anything out of you except the thoughts of another man

(that don't even apply, because, like i predicted, and have said about 100x, you never, ever, once address heroin and addiction)

if you come to me, and dismantle in my mind the connection between heroin and near certain crippling addiction, you win this argument

if you prattle on, quoting mills, as if that is supposed to touch the reality of our argument, you fail

see ADDICTION changes the tenor of the argument friend. it's not like marijuana, or dancing, or oral sex. mill's arguments are about personal liberty and free will. oral sex, dancing, and marijuana don't destroy that

ADDICTION DOES

which means heroin is a SPECIAL CASE, and mill's arguments about personal liberty DON'T APPLY

BECAUSE

ADDICTION

REMOVES

PERSONAL

LIBERTY

MORE

THAN

THE

GOVERNMENT

i look forward to my next inapplicable mills quote from you, and not one mention of addiction from you

zzz

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Holy fucking crack smoking jesus (none / 0) (#377)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:27:44 PM EST

You want a link? Like the link I provided to you when I first mentioned Mills. All I have done is ask that you read it, so at least your argument can be consistent with it (either for or against)...

So, you have no idea how happy I am that you are now prepared to read it finally. You will find that Mills does not argue about what an individual must do to maximise his freedoms, but what limits society must have in order to maximise the freedoms of individuals, which, he concludes, is by having no limits on what an individual may do in so far that it only affects themselves.

He argues, as far as welfare goes, that if you take this line of reasoning: It invades my right of equality, by deriving a profit from the creation of a misery I am taxed to support., then: So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, just as I used it show marjiuana should be outlawed for the same reason.

Like I said, please read On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, because at the end of all this, I think that you and I at heart are both aiming for maximum freedom - except that I (and Mills) admit some may limit their own freedoms by bad decisions, we are all better off for it.

If you agree with Mills, you will be able to argue far better than an idiot like me, if you don't I would like to hear why it is wrong - on an argument based on a knowledge of its actual principles. Either way, you are better for reading it -- knowledge is power. So, please, Enjoy.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

my citations (none / 0) (#378)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:42:38 PM EST

mills supported opium, because was a colonial neocon in his day

he supported the imperialist ambitions of britain on china, where opium was used as a weapon against the populace... funny, how is that possible? maybe because it is addictive and removes your motivations and free will? hmmm... never heard that one before! (snicker)

...but this is all retarded, because mills really isn't germaine to the argument, you keep dragging him in, because it makes sense to you, because your mind doesn't process the reality of addiction in your arguments

if you actually understood how addiction changes the argument for specifically heroin (and that it is the largest issue, the deciding issue, when you discuss heroin), you wouldn't quote poor mills. because you would understand that when it comes to addiction, personal liberty as a tool in the discussion falls squarely agains theroin

I think that you and I at heart are both aiming for maximum freedom - except that I (and Mills) admit some may limit their own freedoms by bad decisions, we are all better off for it.

that's the most vauable thing you've said in about 10 posts, mainly because you actually said something valid, rather than just "read this" (what, you can't articulate the ideas you hold so dear?)

however, i can conveniently counter you (and place the entire discussion of heroin outside of mills, wher ei talways has been, except in your mind) by stating that by becoming an addict, you also limit the freedoms of other people as well as your own (by becoming a ward of the state, your family, etc.)

therefore, it is not a SELF freedom destroyer, it is destroying the freedom of OTHERS AS WELL

this puts it beyond mills, beyond your conception of what heroin really represents philosophically, and beyond the pale

thus, we wage wa ron heroin, and thereby increase personal freedom

and not like waging war on dancing or marijuana or oral sex, because heroin IS A HIGHLY ADDICTIVE DRUG, such that unlike your social conservative examples, heorin, and heroin alone, DESTROYS PERSONAL LIBERTY

 

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I thought you would read, but instead you retard (none / 0) (#379)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:59:01 PM EST

(by becoming a ward of the state, your family, etc.)
PROOF YOU DIDN'T READ MILLS IDIOT -- HE ARGUES THIS, AND YOU ARGUE AGAIN FROM IGNORANCE -- WELL DONE, FUCKING USELESS.

As for your link, you have an unsubstantiated claim from a blog, and a quote of mills saying that the governed should defer to the government (EVEN THOUGH HE STATES THE CHINESE SITUATION IS FUCKING QUESTIONABLE) Just As I argued before.

So, now you aren't going to read it... you can fuck off.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

mills is not a god darling (none / 0) (#380)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:12:32 PM EST

he's a man, he makes mistakes, he is not perfect. in mills case, he wrote great insights on personal liberty, but at the same time, he was a raging colonial imperialist neocon in his day. this decided his opinion on opium, in spite of his probably deeper true feelings on the issue of personal liberty and opium. for him, opium was more important to use as a weapon against the chinese (funny how that is possible, huh? ;-), than as a horrible example of the worst enemy of personal freedom that he held so dear

but nevermind: what are you? some sort of weird fundamentalist? how dare i have a different interpretation of mills than you? (snicker)

here is the summation of our argument:

heroin has a near certainty of addiction. addiction destroys personal liberty. therefore, on the issue of personal liberty, heroin is special. because denying it's use increases personal liberty, unlike almost every other issue in the world: sex, dancing, marijuana, etc.

that's the issue, you are defeated

i look forward to your next tangentially related inapplicable mills quote, and you're complete avoidance of the issue of addiciton, which is the issue which makes heroin special and unlike all of the other examples of government removing personal freedoms

you lose, unless you remove in my mind the specialness of heroin, due to it's highly addictive nature, on the question of personal liberty

k thx ;-)

teeheeheeeee


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Can't you fucking read, are you too clever to read (none / 0) (#381)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:42:43 PM EST

an essay? Do you know all that is true because you are CTS... No, its because you are a fucking moron.

I don't care if Mills was a fucking rapist of young puppies, I am not appealing to authority, I am appealling to the arguments put forth in one short essay that should take you the lesser part of two hours to read, but you are too fucking stupid to do even that.

He NEVER ONCE states that addiction is a weapon to bring down the chinese --- where the fuck is your citation retard? Nothing you linked to shows him saying anything of the sort.

Heroin is NOT SPECIAL --- It may cause harm to someone, it may limit his mental, physical and financial well being -- which the essay says is of no one's concern but the person themselves. If you don't admit that the essay says this, you automatically lose.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT....

You can read it here, and have an argument, or you can repeat lies.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#382)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:19:50 PM EST

  1. i showed you my citation, it's right there. the man wrote about it in his own words: the "chinese problem". what more do you ask? written on his gravestone?
  2. you don't win an argument by saying "read this". if you can't even articulate in your own words what is so wonderful about mills' ideas, then that speaks volumes about how convincing they really are, doesn't it?
  3. "Heroin is NOT SPECIAL" Heroin is special darling. So is Marijuana. So is Alcohol. So is Nicotine. Etc. In other words: different drug, different policy. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You seem to think that a blanket policy for all drugs is valid. NO. That's intellectually dishonest at best, and at worst, it speaks of how shallow and simplistic your understanding of the subject matter is

Heroin is special, because it is so highly addictive. Addiciton destroys personal liberty. Thus, the special case of heorin is such that the personal liberty destroyed by heroin, just heroin, means that heroin, just heroin, must be fought in order to increase personal liberty

because it's highly addictive

there's the 800 poun gorilla friend. go, shake his hand, introduce yourself

you lose

ironclad argument by me. appeals to authority and avoidance of the 800 pound gorilla by you

address addiction, and stop appealing to authority or else, your loser status is more and more solid with every passing post

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nope, you have utterly lost (none / 0) (#383)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:30:23 PM EST

  1. He says the chinese war is fucking questionable, that's the only citation you have of him saying anything on the subject. You make up the rest.
  2. You can't know everything, no generation ever has, you do not know exactly what it is another person experiences. The person who knows what is best for a person is that person. Therefore society has no right to punish a person where he only harms himself. Harm must be direct to be punished, it cannot be the harm where society loses the abilities of that person. Its five pages long, you expect me to argue it in one comment - rusty would ban me.
  3. The possibility of addiction to heroin does not alter fact 2)

Personal liberty cannot be more greatly extinquished than by the state, no matter what harm (or benefits) may naturally fall upon a person because of his actions.

Marijuana can be calculated to leave someone as a ward of the state -- many doctors believe this to be true, and so do I.

You lose fuckwit, because you are unable to read:

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. -- On Liberty


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
zzz (none / 0) (#384)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:38:07 PM EST

addiction turns you into a ward of the state. heroin has a near certainty of addiction. that's not true of marijuana. but i thought you wanted to treat all drugs the same (snicker ;-)

since addiction renders the byproducts of using heroin as something that effects you AND your society, then society has a right to prevent you from using it. if you could use it, and not, with near certainty, become a ward of the state, then heroin should be free and legal

but it's highly addictive

the single solitary gigantic fact you avoid, the single solitary gigantic fact which utterly defeats you

mills is a straw man

because mills doesn't apply, because mills only concerns himself with society preventing people from doing things that only effects themselves

and what's especially hilarious is you expect government to regulate and ensure the quality of heroin, to provide saf i njection sites. which is necessary in the views of the swiss, only because heroin effects society, and that's how switzerland has decided to deal with that

which is a whole other argument, but most importantly IT MAKES IT FUCKING OBVIOUS THAT HEROIN USE DOESN'T HAPPEN IN A VACUUM, THE ADDICTION MEANS THAT SOCIETY HAS TO GET INVOLVED

QUID PRO QUO: MILLS IS A STRAW MAN

you've spent the last 30 posts using a great man and his words in support of an argument which doesn't even apply

hilarious ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Becoming a ward of the state (none / 0) (#385)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:19:38 PM EST

or more correctly:
but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burthen on their affection or benevolence

Is well within the limits of the arguments of Mills and he does not consider it a harm to society. This invalidates:

because mills doesn't apply, because mills only concerns himself with society preventing people from doing things that only effects themselves

Which we knew all along.

You've gone from arguing again that Mills agrees with you, to Mills is tangental, to Mills is a strawman --- but here it is, at the very heart of the topic.

If you had any integrity at all you would at least say that Mills was FUCKING WRONG - for reasons A, B and C.

Oh, and proof you lose -- Marjiuana is illegal fuck head -- society obviously decides (against the wishes of Mills) that it is to great a burden on it, that you are too likely to depend on society if you use it. That's what you deserve for arguing people cannot choose for themselves.

Its like I'm trying to argue that you can't go faster than the speed of light, and I say look, read this by Einstein, he says e=mc^2, so the mass increases as you go faster to the point of being infinite at light speed, and you're saying, No, Einstien agrees with me because F=ma....

If you can't or won't read evidence I present, you can't argue --- you utterly lose.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#386)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:21:16 AM EST

heroin is special darling

unlike marijuana, dancing with black folk, or not wearing your burkha, all of which are limits on freedoms, heroin itself is a limit on freedom (near certain addiction)

therefore, limiting that which is a limitation on freedom leads to an INCREASE in freedom

do you understand why heroin is special?

ADDICTION

DO YOU SPEAK IT MOTHERFUCKER?

mills is about increasing freedom. mills is on MY SIDE. mills is about that which does not affect others. heroin use, by becoming an addict affects others

all of which i've said about 10x now

so, in conclusion:

  1. i've disproved the applicability of mills ot the discussion
  2. i've brought up an overwhelming issue: addiction, which you fail to address

in your next post, talking about mills, and not talking about addiction, both constitute a major failure of intellectual honesty on your part

you'd do better not to reply at all, since you've already lost


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

blah blah blah blah (none / 0) (#387)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 03:58:11 PM EST

idiocy at its finest, CTS.

So, you think opium isn't addictive? Why would Mill say that prohibiting opium is a restriction on the liberty of the buyer? Oh yeah, simple, because you are an idiot and haven't yet read On Liberty.

Addiction is a harm to the user... Neither you or I am harmed by someone being addicted in any extent greater than we are harmed when someone comes off a motorcycle and cracks their head.

All you are admitting is your ignorance of Mill's argument my darling. Stop failing and read.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you stepped in it (none / 0) (#388)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:42:03 PM EST

"Neither you or I am harmed by someone being addicted in any extent greater than we are harmed when someone comes off a motorcycle and cracks their head"

motorcyclists are required to get licenses, are required by law to get helmets, to pass an driver's exam, to have insurance, and are not allowed to speed

why?

because motorcyclists fuck up, and hurt other people. so society proactively regulates their use

just liek society regulates the use of heroin: physical pain management, no recreational use (or psychological pain management)

any other lectures you want to give me on your misunderstanding of mills today?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nope, sorry, you are wrong again (none / 0) (#389)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:56:09 PM EST

Motorcyclists only require helmets and licences on PUBLIC roads --- On private land you require none of these (you know, farms, off road, etc)...

Are motorcycles banned in these conditions, no... Can they crack their heads and become full time wards of the state, yes...

Try again.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

oh that's fascinating (none / 0) (#390)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:00:49 PM EST

so according to your allegory, heroin users can enter an alternate reality where the near certain addiction they begin to suffer for their heroin use magically disappears upon return to our reality

addiction stays with you bonehead, everywhere you go, all the time. it changes your behavior. permanently

try again

you fail


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

that is fascinating (none / 0) (#391)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:13:13 PM EST

so according to your allegory, off road motocyclists who crack their heads can enter an alternate reality where their brain damage magically disappears upon return to our reality.

Brain damage stays with you bonehead, everwhere you go, all the time. it changes your behaviour.

try again

you fail

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, brain damage is a real risk for offroading (none / 0) (#392)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:46:46 PM EST

as opposed to addiction from using heroin

which is a NEAR CERTAINTY

FAIL

YET AGAIN


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LIBERTY MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SEEK IT (none / 0) (#393)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:57:21 AM EST

Lets talk about certainty, liberty, Mill, addiction and welfare shall we, and see how hard you fail.

BTW, as for what the Swiss think of the harm reduction program, if only they were a country based on (semi)Direct democracy, then an educated public could have participated in some sort of national referendum, and then some 71% could have approved it with a majority in all 26 cantons. Now you'll have to ask some random (presumably Swiss) k5 user what he thinks instead.

heroin itself is a limit on freedom (near certain addiction)

therefore, limiting that which is a limitation on freedom leads to an INCREASE in freedom

Mill actually says quite the opposite... He says only what society incorrectly punishes or that in which an individual harms society or another limits freedom -- an act which naturally (meaning to include people's opinions, attitudes and dispositions, but not punishments) limits freedom of the person committing the act, does not limit freedom, and in fact increases liberty by increasing all of human knowledge and experience (even the bad examples are good, according to Mill).

NEAR CERTAINTY
What does Mill say about certainty?

every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.
Blacks are certainly inferior to whites, they are the rightful slaves, and whites their rightful masters. Women are certainly inferior to men, and in any case certainly not capable of voting or owning land. Alcohol is certainly destructive and will lead to the downfall of a nation if not prohibited.

Mill cares about, in every case, the remaining doubt far more than any amount of supposed 'certainty'.

Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

Doubt is where the truth lies, according to Mill, either in being itself correct, or in shedding greater light on the current understanding.

And, we know from this discussion there is doubt, if none by you, then at least by me -- Rat Park, the Swiss experiment, Dr Froggatt.

The real question is not that heroin is addictive, but why does one addict become a mugger and another the most powerful doctor in the UK? How can addicts who have a constant supply go back into meaningful employment and leave welfare? Why is it that some people don't become addicted and what makes some addicts, when given an infinite supply of heroin, decide to quit? Are you, as Smashing Pumpkins would say, just a rat in a cage and doomed to addiction, or are some of us happy, free and sociable and does this mean addiction is avoidable despite use?

These are the doubtful truths Mill believes society and liberty are served best by knowing, even though many may fall along the way.

Now, before you think he means we limit our enquiries to mere discussion, that even though they must be questioned freely, they cannot be acted on freely:

That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them

unlike marijuana, dancing with black folk, or not wearing your burkha, all of which are limits on freedoms, heroin is addictive and different.
Then, he goes to try and show what some people might argue against the difference between harm to the self and harm to society or the individual, which I quoted before and which some arguments you then go on to use.

Mill states that these arguments can (and therefore will) be applied to anything, that if you admit the principle, don't object to it when the majority applies the principle to you. He says, if you say someone can't use heroin because he may become (no matter how likely or certain) a burden on the state, don't complain when someone says you can't use marijuana because you might (no matter how unlikely) become a burden on the state. He preempts marijuana prohibition by stating that the argument you are using is not justified ever, because if you admit it at all, you have admitted it for all cases.

Finally, lets put to rest the notion that an action which might conceivably lead to a person being permanently supported by the state would not be supported by Mill, or rather by the harm principle. This is the final complaint of yours that I haven't fully pwned you on and it has taken me some time to consider, not least of which being that there was no social security, as far as I know, in Mill's time and he himself seems to be saying that welfare would be best handled by charities, rather than the government (I could be wrong, and in either case, not sure I agree, but anyway).

He hints at the idea when he quotes the "Alliance":

It invades my right of equality, by deriving a profit from the creation of a misery I am taxed to support.
Where the "Alliance" speaker seems to say that he must support, through his taxes, those who fall upon the miseries of alcohol - I can only conclude welfare. Mill says:
So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify
As I said above, re marijuana, helmetless off road motorcycling and even heroin.

Here is yet another way of looking at it. Mill always says that the harm must be direct. You say, addiction is a harm to others because it leads to welfare, just as speeding is harm because it leads you to running people over. However, just as speeding would not be harm if it never lead to running someone over, likewise addiction couldn't be a harm if it never lead to welfare. So its not speeding or addiction that are the harm (in and of themselves), but the consequences they lead to. So, therefore, we must look to the next level to see if it really is a harm. Is running someone over a harm to others? Clearly, as if you do this, even without speeding, you have harmed someone and can be rightly punished. Is welfare a harm to others? Clearly it isn't a harm to others, otherwise in itself it would have to be illegal and anything that could lead to welfare would also have to be illegal. So, you are claiming that something is a harm to you because it leads to something that otherwise is not a harm to you, or rather, you are claiming life long reliance on the state for welfare is only a harm to you in the case of addiction. I hope you see the contradiction.

Just to be complete, to show again that Mill fully included addiction as purely self regarding harm:

the prohibition of the importation of opium into China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.

If you think I have quoted out of context, you are fully capable of finding the quotes in On Liberty yourself, and showing me wrong.

Finally, before you claim Mill was some sort of Neocon, he is considered among the founders of modern liberalism, a refiner of the ideas of John Locke, on which your country's ideals are based. A liberal who doesn't know Mill's On Liberty is like a Communist who doesn't know Marx' Manifesto.

I hope that answers everything and I hope you eventually take the time to read On Liberty. Its a great essay and I'm sure you'd enjoy it anyway.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

about neocons (none / 0) (#394)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:47:47 AM EST

neocons believe in extending their belief system via force. they are actualyl usually social liberals, not social conservatives. neocons are not the same as social conservatives at all

how do i know?

because i am a neocon

and a social liberal

i belief in the extension of liberty via the dismantling of opporessive regimes

so, in truth, i am closer to mills than you ever could be. mills definitely was a neocon, if you had any historical knowledge of him and his enthusiastic stance in great britain on the wars it was involved in during its time

and, at the root of my desire to see oppressive regimes beaten with military force to extend liberty, is the exact same impulse of mine to see violent warfare on heroin users and dealers, for the exact same reason

in other words, being as close to mills as i am in ideology, i know mills woudl stand against heroin use. he was for its use... in china, as a weapon of warfare

how can i be so bold? because i understand what you never will:

heroin addiction is a kind of oppression of personal liberty that no fascist government in the world could ever replicate in terms of evil. mills would understand that

how you know who and what i am. and now you also know, that your great hero, mills, is closer to me than you could possible be ;-)

if you ever want to know what it is like to talk to mills, talk more with me. i AM mills 100x more than you could ever be

read, it and weep dear deluded fool:

JOHN STUART MILLS

SUPER NEOCON HERO

This brings us to Mill's general doctrine in favor of intervention - outside the empire. Mill is perhaps most known, this side of the water, for his essay On Liberty. The essay is certainly about liberty, but not nearly as favorable to that notion as is commonly believed. Similarly, Mill's essay on Non-Intervention (1859) is about its topic.(7) Unfortunately, it is hardly favorable to non-intervention at all.

Mill sets off with a lament about how good, how noble, how selfless British foreign policy has been, and is, by its very nature. He suffers from knowing that the rest of the world fails to appreciate this unalloyed philanthropy and suspects Britain's motives. This part of the essay could form part of any recent speech by George W. Bush, although Mill's literary style is superior.

He quickly finds problems in the strict non-interventionist creed of Richard Cobden and John Bright and casts it aside. We can't treat civilized and barbarous nations alike, he says. These barbarians may need good government imposed on them from outside.

And what of people fighting for freedom against a native despotism? Well, that's tricky, Mill admits. One has to decide these things on a case by case basis, old chap.

It is clearer, of course, when the oppressed are fighting for freedom against a state imposed by outsiders. This only applies to civilized peoples fighting for freedom, remember, the barbarians need not apply. Britain ought to intervene in cases of the former type. This he calls "Intervention to enforce non-intervention" - that is, to enforce non-intervention on the part of Austria, Russia, or some other Bad Power.(8)

One could build an entire U.S. foreign policy on that interesting slogan.

Summarizing Mill's views gleaned from various writings, Kenneth Miller has written that Mill's "final conclusion [was] that a nobly-intentioned intervention, with England assumed to be nobly-minded, on moral and libertarian grounds, which presumably England alone might interpret, is justifiable if, on weighing the consequences, it appears likely to be successful and beneficial."(9)

One could build an entire U.S. empire on that theory.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

;-)

it is the same basis as my

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude, you directly contradict his statements. (none / 0) (#395)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:51:18 PM EST

Yes, I understand that he makes a distinction between the barbarous and enlightened cultures, that's obvious in On Liberty anyway. I can see that he would be FOR invasion of countries without liberty in order to bring it about, I don't see these as contradictions either.

However, he was certainly NOT for the use of opium as a weapon. In his time, opium was legal for him to use, but not for the Chinese. Hence, he clearly states, that disallowing it to the Chinese is a LIMITATION OF LIBERTY to the buyer, that their freedom is infringed --- there is no statement of his intention of using at as a weapon, or that he intends to limit their freedom by making it available to them.

If you have to make things up, you lose -- Show me a statement where he directly says opium itself is a weapon or similar if you want to keep your credibility, but as you can't, you lose.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

dude, he was a neocon (none / 0) (#396)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:18:56 PM EST

and he was enthusiastic about the opium wars

you know what the opium wars were, right?

the british, the drug dealers, were pissed the chinese were trying to control their own destiny, and therefore were trying to outlaw opium (imagine that! pffft) and the british, the drug dealers, were using opium as a weapon to sap the soul of the chinese, reduce them to catatonic wrecks. yes, you're lovely opium, tool of oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars#The_growth_of_the_opium_trade

British exports of opium to China skyrocketed from an estimated 15 tons in 1730, to 75 tons in 1773, shipped in over two thousand "chests", each containing 140 pounds (64 kg) of opium.

Thus, in 1799, the Chinese Empire again banned opium imports. Shortly after, in 1810, the Empire issued an official decree:

Opium has a harm. Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality. Its use is prohibited by law. Now the commoner, Yang, dares to bring it into the Forbidden City. Indeed, he flouts the law!
However, recently the purchases, eaters, and consumers of opium have become numerous. Deceitful merchants buy and sell it to gain profit. The customs house at the Ch'ung-wen Gate was originally set up to supervise the collection of imports (it had no responsibility with regard to opium smuggling). If we confine our search for opium to the seaports, we fear the search will not be sufficiently thorough. We should also order the general commandant of the police and police- censors at the five gates to prohibit opium and to search for it at all gates. If they capture any violators, they should immediately punish them and should destroy the opium at once. As to Kwangtung and Fukien, the provinces from which opium comes, we order their viceroys, governors, and superintendents of the maritime customs to conduct a thorough search for opium, and cut off its supply. They should in no ways consider this order a dead letter and allow opium to be smuggled out!
(Lo-shu Fu, A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western relations, Vol. 1 (1966), page 380)

The decree had little effect since the Qing government was located in Beijing, in the north. However, the merchants smuggled opium into China from the south. This, along with the addictive properties of the drug, the desire for more profit by the British East India Company (which had been granted a monopoly on trade with China by the British government), and the fact that Britain wanted silver (see gold standard) only further developed the opium trade. By the 1820s, 900 tons of opium per year came into China from Bengal.

see, the chinese lived then in an environment of easy opium access. the result? lots of opium addicts. which is what i've been telling you all along. their conclusion? fight back against it. which is what i've been telling you all along. the enemy? the drug dealers, wishing to make a profit

ergo: opium is a tool of oppression, a destroyer of personal liberty

ergo: you're a deluded moron

please educate yourself, about your hero js mill (who was a neocon imperialist on the side of using opium for destroying personal liberty) and about opium, which is a greater destroyer of personal liberty than the most fascist totalitarian government in the most dystopian science fiction fantasy ever could be

the, the horrible truth is twofold:

  1. your hero, js mill, is on my side of the argument
  2. my side of the argument happens to be involved with an INCREASE in personal liberty. which is what you seek. but you seek it by trying to normalize the use of a highly addictive drug which DESTROYS PERSONAL LIBERTY

which makes you my enemy. which makes you js mill's enemy

i fight for personal liberty. and i understand the relationship between personal liberty and heroin more than you do, moron

mill? his relationship with heroin is complicated by the geopolitics of his day. but he clearly is on my side when it comes what heroin means to personal liberty. he understood it far too well, and was happy to use it as a wepaon to advance british drug dealing and sap and destroy chinese willpower

destroy chinese personal liberty

imagine that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You lose unless you show me where he says that (none / 0) (#397)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:20:42 PM EST

Opium was readily available to the English at his time retard. He did not consider it a weapon.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
let me get this straight (none / 0) (#398)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:22:33 PM EST

i lose unless i find an obscure quote?

i think i already did for mill concering the "chinese problem", about 50 posts ago in this retarded thread

(you go link hunting, i'm not doing it for you)

the fact is opium is a greater destroyer of personal liberty than the most fascist government that ever oculd exist

do you deny that?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And I rebuke your so called 'quotes' in my reply. (none / 0) (#399)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:32:13 PM EST

So, yes you lose. Mill had access to opium himself and knew people addicted to it, yet says limiting its sale is a limitation on the liberty of the buyer -- That's NOT an obscure quote. Think about it.

the fact is opium is a greater destroyer of personal liberty than the most fascist government that ever oculd exist
Of that you are certain, that is, you are certain you are certain.

Its such a shame you fail to read one essay - you've had what, two weeks now?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

straw. fucking. man (none / 0) (#400)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:27:04 PM EST

like i've always said, mill doesn't relate to the issue we're discussing, he's tangential

but you wish to change the topic of our debate from "should heroin be fought" to "can cts find an obscure quote"

let's put it this way: if i

  1. find a quote which supports me exactly
  2. find a quote which refutes me exactly
  3. don't find a quote at all

the argument between us is the fucking SAME! UNCHANGED

it's a STRAW man on your part

because WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MILL

what are we talking about?

HEROIN!

and yet you insist on talking about mill

wtf?

straw. fucking. man.

heroin, my fine feathered friend, is a greater destroyer of personal liberty than the most fascist government that could ever exist

YOU don't think so

but THAT's the issue between us:

in the name OF personal liberty i fight heroin

in the name OF personal liberty, you support the use of... drum roll please... the most certain destroyer of personal liberty that ever existed!

wtf? you're deluded

the opium wars, which mill supported, was all ABOUT destroying the chinese will via opium. a society that had free access to heroin. what happened? LOTS OF HEORIN ADDICTS! DUH! (smacks forehead) it's historical record your pov on heroin is busted. and what did the chinese conclude? FIGHT HEROIN

THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH A HIGHLY ADDICTIVE DRUG

i know that. mill knew that (he was for it's corrosive use in the opium wars, neocon superhero posterchild he was)

you DON'T know that. because your a fucking moron

you won't learn from SIMPLE OBVIOUS:

A.D.D.I.C.T.I.O.N.

now, you go on with your irrelevant mill, the neocon superhero (smirk)

OR, debate me on the issue at hand

go for it dude, continue on with the straw man

wait

actually, no: i have an ultimatum:

if you talk about addiction and heroin, which is germaine to this entire issue, this debate will continue

if you go on with mill, tangential to the discussion, this debate will end, as i will conclude your reply is nonresponsive, as you don't seem to understand, or understand and in fear of how you are losing, continue on with your strawman. adjusting the debate from one topic to another, with a bead of sweat on your forehead, desperate for a way out on your losing topic

now: do you want to talk about mill?

or heroin?

you decide

and what you decide will decide whether or not this thread continues:

1. mill?: nonresponsive on your part. a subtle admission of defeat on your part. i dont' want to talk about mill, i want to talk about HEROIN. you've strayed from the discussion of heroin

YOU say mill's ideas support yours. I say mill supports me. who is right? say YOU are right. ok. can you put those ideas of mill's in your words ABOUT heroin? no? then you nonresponsive, as the issue isn't mill, it's HEROIN. you're going to bring up mill's? DUDE MILL'S SUPPORTS ME. so talk about his IDEAS to defeat me, as I think the man supports ME

2. heroin? addiction? responsive on your part. you wish to discuss the issue. the thread will continue

your choice fruitcake. talk about mill, i win this thread, a soyu are unresponsive on the issue of heroin. talk about heroin, this thread will continue. your choice. fire away

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Mill IS NOT TANGENTAL - because this is the basis (none / 0) (#401)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:33:32 PM EST

for discussion if something is rightfully prohibited or not -- And that is 'the harm principle'. Harm to the user is NO harm to society and liberty.

Addiction is a harm to the user, therefore its none of your business. As the Swiss guy said, you should tolerate them.

So, you have gone ONCE again in a circle through Mill agrees with me, to Mill is tangential, to Mill was a neocon who wanted to destroy the chinese --- even though the english had opium in their own country for their own citizens at the time.

So, do you disagree with the harm principle, is that your point? If so, too bad for you and your freedom to choose marijuana, lsd or mushrooms -- its for your own good fuckwit.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, i agree 100% with the harm principle (none / 0) (#402)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:56:37 PM EST

i am a social liberal

and heroin use, due to it's near certian addiction, harms others

ergo the harm principle comes out against the heroin use

ergo, mill does not apply, he is tangetial

ergo, you increase personal liberty by fighting heroin

anything else i can help you with today?

see the difference between you and i is not that we have different goals, we have the same goals: increase personal liberty

except that i happen to understand the issue (addiction) better than you, so that my opinion is valid on the issue of heroin, and yours is not

you don't address addiction in your opinion

thus, you fail. you fail in your quest to increase personal liberty, because your opinion, if put into policy would lead to a decrease in personal liberty

;-)

you lose sucka


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#403)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:04:39 PM EST

yes, i agree 100% with the harm principle

...

and heroin use, due to it's near certian addiction, harms others

(snicker)

Unless you have a reason other than welfare (fully debunked) as to why addiction harms others, the above is a total contradiction.

Oooh, I'm hurt, my brain is being addicted, because there's a junkie down the road.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the junkie requires food and housing (none / 0) (#404)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:08:29 PM EST

the poor require food and housing

if you give the poor food and housing, they can live their lives, which includes the desire to work

if you give a junkie food and housing, he sits around all day smoking heroin, because he's an addict

ADDICT

you ever thought about that idea before?

thus, heorin addicts hurt society: useless deadwood that society must support

thus, society has every right fighting an unnecessary substance that reduces normal people to zombiehood

thus, heroin violates the harm principle

thus, the harm principle does not apply

anything else i can help you with today?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yep, failure (none / 0) (#405)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:14:04 PM EST

action leads to consequence therefore action is a harm because it leads to a consequence that isn't a harm (except magically when the action is present, validating theory).

Dope smoker's and LSD users too you know. Those lazy fuckers just want to get high, claim welfare and not work.

Or as Mill puts it:

So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
no. only heroin (none / 0) (#406)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:22:14 PM EST

heroin is highly addictive

lsd and marijuana are barely addictive

so you have an invalid comparison

"action leads to consequence therefore action is a harm because it leads to a consequence that isn't a harm"

that was a nice legalese way of saying "ok, heroin use harms society, but i won't say it does because that would be admitting defeat, and i take pride in stubbornness over logic and reason"

heorin harms society darling. via addiction, it creates nonproductive members of society. tolerance of the substance leads to more addicts, and addicts who are permanently incapacitated. thus, in accordance with the harm principle, society has every right and duty to wage war on heroin

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh no, marijuana too... (none / 0) (#407)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:31:50 PM EST

Marijuana doesn't addict you, it just makes you a lazy bastard who goes on welfare --- therefore harming all of society. They're not addicted to it, they just don't want to quit.

In fact, we should outlaw laziness entirely. If anyone lazy ends up on welfare, then they are harming society. Moreso if they are obstinately, incurably lazy.

Like you say, only heroin magically causes welfare to be harm. That's logical, it affirms your beleif that heroin is a harm.

How do you ratify that with the Swiss program, where addicts (who continued to be addicted but got a supply) ended up leaving welfare?

I know, you are certain that's not possible... I forgot.

Colleridge was a lazy bastard who never did a worthwhile thing, I hear, and that's why you've never heard of him.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

addiction my friend (none / 0) (#408)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:47:17 PM EST

that's my whole point

you can be lazy and useless as you want. because you choose to. but when you are an addict, you can't choose to do that anymore. like i said before in a previous post, you think i have a problem with a subset of human behavior, like a social conservative, that that anger at my motive is what drives you

but of course, that's not really my motive, because you misunderstand me. i have no problem with human bevaior

i have a problem with a SUBSTANCE, that REMOVES your ability to CHOOSE to behave as you like. instead, you behave as a chemical wants you to behave

this makes me a social liberal, as i champion personal freedom

now you understand me better. now you can direct your argument agains tme better

or submit to the superiority of my argument to yours, the suepriority of my understanding of heroin, and accept defeat ;-)

marijuana doesn't addict. heroin does. addiction destroys personal liberty. therefore, it is absurd to champion, in the name of personal liberty, that which destroys personal liberty

that's the whole core of my argument against you

i'm pleased to make your acquaintence with it, the REALITY of my argument, not the argument you think i am making, but tha ti am not making ;-)

in the end, you're nothing but a pile of straw men and misunderstanding

in all of your bluster, you have never addressed what i have always said, and never stopped saying, and never strayer from saying

you lose sucka ;-)

"Like you say, only heroin magically causes welfare to be harm. That's logical, it affirms your beleif that heroin is a harm.

How do you ratify that with the Swiss program, where addicts (who continued to be addicted but got a supply) ended up leaving welfare?"

welfare for the poor is so that the poor can continue to lead their lives, to increase their personal liberty, in the face of economic menace. therefore, welfare for the poor increases personal liberty

support for heroin addicts allows heorin addicts to persist in a state of zombiehood, of no personal choice. trapped in their addiction to be driven to one goal: more heroin. it is the life of the undead. it is cruel, because it allows people to continue in a state of slavery. slavery to an addiciton to heroin. why the swiss choose to do this, i don't know. but in saudi arabia, they behead adulterers. i disagree with that. i also disagree with the swiss. plenty of countries in the world, including the usa, have policies that work against personal liberty. the swiss's atittude on heroin destroys personal liberty. and so the swiss policy is sad. i hope someday they correc their mistake, and fight the slavery that they now support

my goal, from day one: increase personal liberty

this drives me in my war on heroin

defeat THAT connection: heorin use=slavery, and you win the argument with me

but you can't do that because i have a superior understanding of the relationship between addiction, heroin, and personal liberty than you do

all that cna happen in this thread is that i convince you of my superior understand of the relationship between those 3 things ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHA - to sum up (none / 1) (#409)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:55:03 PM EST

So, if you want to be lazy all you want, or use marijuana all day long, and sit on welfare and be happy --- then there is no harm...

Only heroin magically makes welfare a harm.

You shouldn't have used so much LSD, seriously.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, what you said is 100% true (none / 0) (#410)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:09:03 PM EST

because when you are a heroin addict, your actions are being decided by a substance. but when you are just a lazy weed smoking bum, you choose to act the way you do out of your own volition

rememeber the idea of personal liberty friend? ;-)

maybe you're finally getting it ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well... you are showing a contradiction (none / 0) (#411)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:21:19 PM EST

action leads to a consequence therefore action is a harm because it leads to a consequence which isn't a harm (except magically in the presence of action, validating your theory).

Well, as long as you don't care about maintaining any principles, its as logical as magic.

Hmmmm... except that I think that marijuana makes welfare a harm... and laziness too. I guess we can decide as whoever in power chooses. That's a strong basis for a free society.

LSD thinking seems to be really bright and powerful, so liberating, pure freedom from the shackles of logic and consistency, if you are an example to go by.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

addiction (none / 0) (#412)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:37:45 PM EST

the concept you never seem to address

it's fascinating how you tap dance around it

there really is nothing you're operating on here anymore except stubbornness, an unwillingness to admit defeat

all you did above is rehash what you have already said, which i have already dismantled

actions, my friend: yours to make, yours to choose in the name of personal liberty

except when it isn't you making those choices: except when it is a SUBSTANCE making those choices, not YOUR willpower. do you understand addiciton my friend?

it's like suicide: do you have the right to kill yourself? do you have the right to choose to have no personal liberty?

i say no. but even if you kill yourself, you don't burdeon society (you do put your family and friends through living hell, but that's another issue)

however, the slow motion suicide of addiction DOES burden society, so i standly squarely against heroin with much more anger than i do against simple suicide... in the name of personal freedom ;-)

well euthanasia is ok (sound mind, unsound body... not unsound mind, sound body): the choice is between horrible pain (in which you have no freedom) and death (in which you have no freedom, but also no pain)

that is why, in fact, i am for people in chronic pain using heroin. because the choice is between horrible chronic physical pain robbing you of your freedom, and blissful state of zombiehood robbing you of your freedom. obviously, heroin is better

but for those who are not in physical pain, the choice is:

  1. personal liberty
  2. slavery to a substance

so if you are not in chronic pain, heroin means less personal freedom via addiction, AND it harm society

now you know me friend ;-)

now you know what motivates me: INCREASE IN PERSONAL LIBERTY

now you have to defeat the REAL me

not all of your straw men and prejudicial judgments

the REAL argument i am REALLY making that i have made ALL ALONG

i have finally punched through your veil, and exposed your mind to novel thought

you will come out against heroin in the end, not in this thread, but in a few years when, given some time in the absence of your stupidly stubborn willfulness, you can come to the obvious conclusion in seclusion

you're welcome

for me introducing you to greater personal freedom, and away from the clutches of the slavery of heroin ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

addiction doesn't suddenly make something a harm (none / 0) (#413)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:07:58 PM EST

when it is otherwise not a harm.

Now, find me something, other than the single example of addiction/welfare where:

action leads to consequence therefore action is a harm because consequence isn't a harm (except magically when action leads to consequence, validating your theory)

I honestly can't think of any case where this is true.

Is it okay to crash your car into someone now, as long as you aren't speeding? Are you trying to say that running someone over is only a harm when you are speeding? Is it only a harm because you are out of control, even if you think you aren't?

BTW, PERSONAL LIBERTY has nothing to do with 'the harm principle' - that is an imagination in your own mind, born out of pure ignorance. Mill doesn't support such a view and would laugh at you.

LSD limits your personal liberty by damaging your ability to think rationally. I might agree it does not harm society's liberty, but it definitely harms personal liberty. You can't go back and decide to recover from the damage it has done to your mind. You have forever forsaken this freedom, it's even less reversable than addiction.

Smoking is slow motion suicide --- this is a fact, you can't argue with it. You might be reasonably competent until emphasema or lung cancer gets you, but its still suicide. Its a limit on personal liberty.

Here's a fitting analogy for you: You think medicine should be nationalised (I think you have said that before, and I tend to agree) --- Now, aren't smokers causing harm by being a burden on national health care?

I see why Mill thinks these things are better provided by charity - in my mind, they are in fact still a charity, supported through taxes and administered by the government. They don't stop being a charity because the government provides them and they do not (in a rightful sense) then become an excuse to control behaviour (although, I can accept that they can be rationed under certain circumstances - that's a hint for you or possibly a point we could find agreement on).

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

addiction doesn't harm huh? (none / 0) (#414)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:29:19 PM EST

you're fucking serious?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Fuck you stupid troll, harm to others, retard (none / 0) (#415)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:24:22 AM EST

I am no longer sure that I am talking to a single person anymore - its like, we discuss something to death, and you completely forget it the next day. You have serious memory problems.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
we have discussed this to death (none / 0) (#416)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:29:41 PM EST

addiction turns you into a ward of society

this discussion is utterly dead

out of pure stubbornness (i can't imagine you are this stupid), you refuse to acknowledge how addiction makes heroin special, and all of your arguments invalid


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

addiction turns you into a ward of society (none / 0) (#417)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 12:11:53 AM EST

So fucking what? The only thing special is that this is magically only a harm to you when it is heroin or some other drug you haven't done.

Its fucking crazy... An alcoholic on welfare isn't even a harm to you, no matter that the result is exactly the same as you described for heroin...

You have no consistent principle on the matter, other than only wanting what you do to be legal, and not seeing why you would want to do something, nor should anyone else. Its exactly the attitude described by Mill, and as the majority will never want to fry their brains on LSD, as you so obviously have, too bad you will forever be a criminal.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so fucking what: (none / 0) (#418)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 10:27:46 AM EST

it destroys your entire argument

you lose sucka


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It destroys your argument retard (none / 0) (#419)
by procrasti on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:11:20 AM EST

Remember Mill and 'the harm principle' you know so much about?

Harm to the user is irrelevant.

Otherwise alcohol needs to be outlawed.

You lose.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

it harms both (none / 0) (#420)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:35:08 PM EST

user and society

you're such a loser


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no you are a fucking loser (none / 0) (#421)
by procrasti on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 08:17:13 PM EST

You haven't yet explained how an addict harms society, except for magical, LSD based, reasoning.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i have, about 100x already (none / 0) (#422)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 12:27:39 AM EST

i won't repost it, as i'm not really arguing with anyone of the remotest amount of intelligence. just a simple reflexive stubborn bore


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
let me recap your theory of 'harm to society' (none / 0) (#423)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:30:26 AM EST

Action is a harm because it leads to a consequence that isn't a harm (except magically when action leads to consequence, validating your theory).

Addiction is a harm to society because it leads to welfare which isn't a harm to society, except when its addiction that leads to welfare because that allows the person to continue to harm themselves.

Ridiculous.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i see (none / 0) (#424)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:07:33 PM EST

it is your right to require me to pay for you to sit around addicted to a drug. that doesn't harm me

well, i am going to petition the us government to support me, feed me, clothe me, house me, as i embark on my god-given right to sit home all day playing videogames

this is an incomplete comparison of course, as i can stop playing videogames if i want

I CAN'T STOP BEING ADDICTED

furthermore, the poor who require welfare still work. they are being freed from economic hardship: a bad economy, lack of education, etc. they WANT to work, and contribute, but bad situations are preventing them from contributing. it doesn't mean they can stop supporting themselves, or that they want to stop supporting themselves

if you are an addict, it means EXACTLY that: you stop supporting yourself, and you stop caring about supporting yourself

only one thing becomes your all consuming passion

but you don't understand what addiction is

it's this giant blind spot on your brain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you are blind (none / 0) (#425)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:22:05 PM EST

Remember, you said, being lazy and wanting to play video games all day and collect welfare is not a harm to you or society. They don't want to contribute.

Take your above example and apply it to alcoholics. Oh dear, exactly the same as heroin.

And what is the difference (in the result) between someone who can but doesn't ever want to stop, and someone who can't stop? None, whatsoever - Is this a harm to you or not? Please make up your mind.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

and, true to form, you miss the concept (none / 0) (#426)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:44:06 PM EST

that changes the entire formula: addiction

in this case, near certain, easy addiction

that makes heroin special

i've said this about 1,000x now

why can't you see that this feature of heroin makes it special, alters and destroys all of your arguments?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, that's the point, its not special (none / 0) (#427)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:53:10 PM EST

An alcoholic, provably addicted and unable to work is EXACTLY the same as a heroin addict unable to work... A lazy bastard never wanting to work is exactly the same result as someone unable to work because of addiction.

CONSISTENCY MOTHERFUCKER

If you start out with the AXIOMATIC ASSUMPTION that addiction is different, then you end up with the stupid contradictions you create.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#428)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:08:59 PM EST

how easy is it to get addicted to alcohol?

how easy is it to get addicted to heorin?

zzz

dude, try some new arguments, your old tired "i don't understand what addiction is and how it relates to heroin" game is extremely tired


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

How easy is unimportant compared to the results (none / 0) (#429)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:10:52 PM EST

of being addicted, in order to be consistent.

Is an alcoholic, an addict, unable to work, entitled to welfare, and if so, how is this not a harm to you and society?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, absolutely (none / 0) (#430)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:19:14 PM EST

but how the alcoholic gets to that state is a long and convuluted road. you have to work hard and devote a lot of time and habituation to become an alcoholic. such that, the number of people who drank alcohol compared to the number of alcoholics is a tiny ratio. thus, alcohol should remain legal

however, with heroin, the number of uses required to turn into an addict is very low. such that, the number of people who tried heroin compared to the number of heroin addicts is a large ratio. thus, the very substance heroin itself being outlawed is the most prudent option, even considering all of prohibition type effects associated with that decision

which i've said a million times already

i don't even have to think anymore to smack you down

it's an iron wall of logic you keep trying to scale from various points of view, some time trying the same point of view another time after a few posts

are you brain damaged or something? do you have an impairment in your long term or short term memory?

the book is closed on you. every argument you've made is shut down. mutliple times

this thread is beyond intellectual chairty. i'm like your nursemaid at this point


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#431)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:22:04 PM EST

didn't answer my question == you lose.

So, I take that as you saying that you don't even consider addiction leading to welfare to be a harm to you, making heroin an even more magic case again.

Some people are very easily addicted to alcohol, others will never be addicted to heroin.

Read Mill, then argue with me retard.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

do you actually consider that a valid response? (none / 0) (#432)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:38:49 PM EST

heroin is orders of magnitude more addictive than alcohol. that makes it special

really, fucktard

but keep arguing friend, your arguing against solid science, the legal common wisdom of every country and every culture that has ever existed (inlcuding your vaunted swiss, who agree with the effects, just have chosen a bizarre self-defeating strategy)

you are frankly, delusional

oxycodone: here is a chemical strictly regulated, and yet it gets out and abused? why? simply because it is so addictive!

and this simple straightforward issue of heorin and its easy addiction potential: it just completely escapes your mind

you're all alone friend, you're lost. you're arguing the moon landing was faked, you're arguing the holocaust never happened, you're arguing 9/11 was an inside job. you're arguing heroin's easy addiciton doesn't make it special

same delusion. same insanity

you're done

of course you won't admit it. all you have is being a stubborn bore. all logic and reason on the issue is beyond you

read, moron, and learn


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The result is either a harm or it isn't (none / 0) (#433)
by procrasti on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:50:01 PM EST

Something doesn't magically become a harm because the cause leading to it is either likely or not.

Let me ask you, according to you, its the probability that an action that leads to addiction (which MAY become welfare), which causes harm... Stupid, but lets go with it.

What percentage? 0.1%, 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 80%, 99%?

Where is it okay, and where is it not?

Why, is one substance, that 5.5% of people get addicted to okay, and another, where 9% get addicted not okay?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#434)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:15:34 AM EST

Let me ask you, according to you, its the probability that a speeding that leads to accident (which MAY become deadly), which causes harm... Stupid, but lets go with it.

What percentage? 10mph, 20mph, 30mph, 40mph, 50 mph, 60 mph 70 mph, 80 mph 90mph 100mph?

Where is it okay, and where is it not?

Why, is one speed, that 5.5% of people get an accident at okay, and another, where 50% get an accident not okay?

(magical thinking and denial: on)

obviously, everyone should be allowed to drive as fast as they want, because when they crash (become addicted), they won't effect anyone else


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Let me ask you again (none / 0) (#435)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:16:39 AM EST

Why is alcohol, with an addiction rate of 5.5% okay, and heroin, with an addiction rate of 9% not okay?

Why is 7.5% the magic number asshole?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

are you fucking serious? (none / 0) (#436)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:01:36 AM EST

you can get addicted to heroin after one hit

you can drink alcohol for years and years every day, and not be addicted

heroin, you dumb mother fucker, is an opiate

an opiate, you dumb mother fucker, is the very chemical currency of pleasure in the brain of most animals

if you had the slightest fucking understanding of basic fucking science, that might mean something to you

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

See, that's where you are wrong. (none / 0) (#437)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:06:27 AM EST

5.5% of the US population suffers from alcohol dependence, alcoholism.

Of the 1.3% of Americans who have tried heroin, 0.1% have tried in the last 30 days.

Going cold turkey on heroin is a physically and psychologically painful experience. Going cold turkey on alcohol kills.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

zzz (none / 0) (#438)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:55:12 AM EST

you can't think of a few other factors there?

such as ease of avaiability?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Read those stats again... (none / 0) (#439)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:04:03 AM EST

5.5% of Americans are dependent on alcohol. (Therefore the number is larger, as a percentage of users, as not everyone drinks).

1.3% of Americans have used heroin, and 0.1% have used in the last 30 days. (Therefore lower, as a percentage of users, as not all who have used in the last 30 days are addicts).

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you're delusional (none / 0) (#440)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:24:11 AM EST

what do you think those numbers tell you? why can't your dim fucking brain think of other factors involved?

look, it's for kids, maybe you'll understand then

look, heroin is the fucking poster child fro addiction

ADDICTION MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR COLOSSAL STUPIDITY ON UNDERSTANDING THAT HEROIN'S EASE OF ADDICTION MAKES IT SPECIAL

you can drink alcohol 1,000x and never need to drink it again

you can take heroin 10x and need it for the rest of your life

do you understand that or not?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are denying absolute facts (none / 0) (#441)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 02:30:18 AM EST

Some people can drink alcohol 10x and need it for the rest of their life.

Some people can take heroin 1000x and never take it again.

Heroin addicts have a higher recovery rate than alcoholics. The VAST majority of regular heroin users stop taking it in their late 30s.

Are you denying that, even though you can get heroin, the 1.3% of people that take it then find it hard to get again?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

No... the reason alcohol prohibition fails and heroin prohibition 'works' is that its much easier to oppress 1.3% of the population than it is 85% of the population. The fact that you haven't read Mill, and that you support prohibition, shows that you deserve to be in the 15% of people that are oppressed by prohibition of your favoured drugs.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i know a guy (none / 0) (#442)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:14:02 AM EST

who can speed 100 mph and never get in accident

therefore, eveyrone should

AVERAGES MOTHERFUCKER

you want to honestly tell me alcohol addiciton is anywhere NEAR as easy to achieve as heroin?

you really want to make that your thesis?

teehee ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You see, here's where you are an idiot (none / 0) (#443)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:37:23 AM EST

speeding is wrong, because the result is ACTUAL FUCKING HARM... The proof being, that if I run you over and I'm not speeding, you would still be upset. Or is it okay for me to run you over, then reverse over you, then finally run you over again... AS LONG AS I DON'T SPEED?

Well IS IT MOTHERFUCKER? Cause I'm just itching to test this theory on you.

You say, being on welfare, addicted to some substance is not a harm, unless its heroin or some other drug I don't like... And heroin is a harm, because it leads to you being on welfare, addicted to some substance, which is not harm, unless its heroin or some other drug you don't like, which is why heroin is a harm, because it leads to you being on welfare, addicted to some substance, which is not harm, unless its heroin or some other drug you don't like, which is why heroin....

CircleTimesReasoning.

Its inconsistent, which is why you should read Mill's On Liberty, to see that you can be consistent across all causes, from laziness, WoW, heroin and alcoholism.

There is no such thing as a harm that is not harm except by some cause. You couldn't even come up with one fucking example where this is ever the case except the amazingly convenient heroin one.

If being an addicted on welfare is a harm, its a fucking harm, or it fucking isn't.

Those numbers I stated are facts, heroin is about twice as likely to addict you as alcohol, but you are 5 times more likely to recover from heroin addiction.

Lets talk about the harm heroin does... some adult links for you, maybe you're not up to that level, but here's hoping:

Perhaps surprisingly, the drug isn't particularly harmful to the body
...
But injecting street heroin, with all the impurities that it contains and with unsterile injecting equipment, is fraught with dangers. -- BBC Health, effects of addiction

Alcohol 'nearly as harmful as heroin'

The Guardian - Make heroin legal (Oh look, a major newspaper saying we never landed on the moon!! BWAHAHAHAHA)
This one shows that the link addiction --> welfare is not the drug.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

certainty of addiction= (none / 0) (#444)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:01:22 AM EST

certainty of needing support=

harm to society

which i've said about 10,000x so far

begin the next circulation of procrasti and his short term memory loss circuit

zzz


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well... that's provably wrong $ (none / 0) (#445)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:55:36 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
yeah (none / 0) (#446)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:01:14 PM EST

provably wrong


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
LOL.... idiot (none / 0) (#447)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:40:00 PM EST

actual heroin use studies maybe?

fail to read articles I posted, maybe?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, studies (none / 0) (#448)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:50:45 PM EST

that you use out of context, that don't address the real issue

let me ask you this: say there were an oium haberdashery on every corner, like a pub on every corner in today's world

those who smoke opium in such a world... the majority of them, in your mind, would do it with as much ease in terms of starting and stopping usage as those who drink?

the answer is obvious: addicts rotting on the streets everywhere, since heorin is orders of magnitude more addicitve than alcohol

but i just want to plumb the depths of your delusions, and hear you say what you think that world would be like

xoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Out of context BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#449)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:13:00 PM EST

Always your answer to something I post in context that you don't like... fucking retard. The last defence of the ignorant.

Find me your own fucking studies then asshole... You'll find heroin, the worlds most addictive substance, is about twice as addictive as alcohol.

BUT... if you really want to understand that addiction is more dependent on the user than the drug, please explain why more than half of heroin addicts were once alcohol addicts. (just one, 'out of context' link, snicker)

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so you believe in the gateway drug myth? (none / 0) (#450)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:19:30 PM EST

congratulations, you're a social conservative

you like to quote things like rat park. as if a bunch of rats in rat nirvana is supposed to teach us about human behavior in the economic and intellectual context of human reality. you like to quote things like mill, as if the biggest destroyer of free will ever, addiciton, is something mill would champion. you like to champion the swiss, who in their desperate grasping at straws in their attempt to defeat heroin addiction and not sahow any backbone, they coddle their addicts

you sir, are a moron

you don't understand opiates

you don't understand addiction

and yet you have so much to say about it

interesting isn't it?

i wonder at the motivation


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, not a gateway myth, retard (none / 0) (#451)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:37:25 PM EST

Facts, that some people want escape... that heroin addicts are self selecting group that are prone to addiction NO MATTER THE SUBSTANCE --- very different to gateway theory.

Rat park is rats in their NATURAL environment -- you believe that trapped, tortured rats can explain human behaviour better. BWAHAHAHHAHA..

Mill, a real proponent for liberty, argues for the rights for people to use stimulants and opium. You might have known that by now, if you had actually read his essay.

The Swiss method reduced crime, increased the rate of employment, decreased death and disease, decreased overall heroin use and amazingly.... RESULTED IN HIGHER RECOVERY rates than any other method!! (Also, find harm reduction in Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal...)

Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person --- You do not understand addiction.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes, some people want an escape (none / 0) (#452)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:50:44 PM EST

i want an escape. everyone wants an escape

i also want a million dollars. i could rob someone. but we have laws against that

i could escape in games, hanggliding, arguing with retards on the internet

but if i choose heroin, i am sacrificing my personal liberty for an escape (that's because of the addiction part darling, you know, the thing you don't understand)

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh my god

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh, you kill me. you owe me a new keyboard. i just sprayed soda all over it

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh man. it's like arguing with a ufo cultist, a creationist... how do these insane beliefs get into the heads of people?

you are a special flower procrasti, don't ever change. i'm going to put you up on the shelf there, along with the racists, the religious bigots... circletimessquare's collection of special retarded broken wackjobs

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

instant classic!

perfect!

oh man....


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Then explain why so many heroin addicts are (none / 0) (#453)
by procrasti on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:56:14 PM EST

alcoholics.

Stealing is a harm to others moron.... addiction is a harm to the user.

Furthermore, if you really wanted escape, then you would use heroin.... BWAHAHAHAHA.... See, not EVERYONE wants it moron, they can see past the immediate. Some people chose otherwise.

If you fight for your theory of 'personal liberty', then you must outlaw anything that can harm a person (LSD, mushrooms, cannabis). That's why Mill is brilliant and you are an idiot.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i don't know procrasti (none / 0) (#454)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:57:17 PM EST

my entire understanding of reality has been shattered

because

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh man

classic

sniff


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, it is.... (none / 0) (#455)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:00:15 AM EST

you don't seem to have a better explanation...

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
see your problem procrasti is that (none / 0) (#456)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:02:48 AM EST

you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person

(cocks head, nods sagely)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

man, the depths of stupidity, they know no bounds


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh, well... now that's a convincing argument $ (none / 0) (#457)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:04:08 AM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
ALL READ: (none / 0) (#458)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:20:47 AM EST

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

oh man, this entire fuckknob of a tghread, to come at the end and spit out

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

you sir, are a grade aaa moron, of the highest order

fucking classic

please, go, find the first perons you meet, tell them

"Overall, you think addiction is the property of a drug, but it is an attribute of a person"

unless they are sitting in their own feces, you may encounter some resistance to that FABULOUS notion, you fucking tard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA --- How retarded of you (none / 0) (#459)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 01:41:45 AM EST

If addiction was caused by the drug, and not a susceptibility to addiction in the person taking the drug, then, LOGICALLY MOTHERFUCKER, you would expect that the rates of pre-existing alcohol addiction in heroin addicts would be equal to the general population, but instead you find a high correlation --- NOW WHY THE FUCK IS THAT THEN?

Instead of refuting anything I say, you resort to calling me a moron, because you are a moron and cannot refute the evidence.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

it tells me (none / 0) (#460)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:34:28 AM EST

there are useless people in the world, who seek escape in ways that sell their personal freedom to addiction

the existence of retards does not disprove the addictiveness of a drug

according to your logic, people getting sunburnt is proof that the sun is not hot. because according to your logic, getting sunburnt is a function of having skin, not of the sun being hot

your desperation is complete, it has resulted in your inability to follow simple logic

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It tells you that at least half the people who (none / 0) (#461)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:41:07 PM EST

HARM YOU, because of their addiction would be harming you anyway (oh, but addiction to alcohol is no harm to you, because of your magic definition of harm).

In fact, it says that they do not harm you at all.

What it tells you is that some people are MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to addiction than others. Heroin is about twice as addictive than alcohol, and at least over 90% of people who try it will NEVER get addicted to it. Neither would a huge percentage of people decide to try it, who otherwise wouldn't, if it were to be legalised, just as the majority used alcohol and NOT heroin when it WAS legal.

PS: Addiction is not sunburn. Long term exposure to alcohol, for example, will not NECESSARILY addict you to alcohol.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

no, friend (none / 0) (#462)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:37:52 PM EST

the drug. the actual fucking substance, is the problem

because the drug. the DRUG friend, the heroin, due to BIOCHEMISTRY, understand?, it interacts with the brains CHEMISTRY and alters it, and in heroins case, leads to addiciton faster and with more certainty than any other substance

comprende the fucking obvious?

you're just a complete moron on the subject

a creationist. a ufo conspirist. a fucking low iq wackjob

you honestly want to express to me that addiction is not an issue. in your mind, the most obvious largest subject matter on the issue of narcotics is persona non grata. which is some sort of special class of denial, blindness and stubbornness that puts you in a class of human stupidity that is really quite incredible and amazing

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

friend, that addictive drug is TWICE as addictive (none / 0) (#463)
by procrasti on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:41:40 PM EST

as alcohol.

TWICE.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so what are you trying to do (none / 0) (#464)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:47:04 AM EST

support my arguments?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Orders of magnitude... CERTAINTY... Far from it $ (none / 0) (#465)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:26:22 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
well yeah (none / 0) (#466)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:38:18 PM EST

there are certainly people who can take heroin and never get addicted

there also people who can speed 120 mph all the time and never get an accident

so therefore there should be no speed limits?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no, because speeding causes a harm to society $ (none / 0) (#467)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:46:39 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
yes, just like addiction (none / 0) (#468)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:02:46 PM EST

heroin has too high a certainty of turning people who could otherwise support themselves into basket cases society must support

scanning...

ok, this is the 295th time i've said this obvious fucking truth to you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

lets look at relative harm, shall we (none / 0) (#469)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:23:12 PM EST

Speeding, the result, death... Ie, the total irreversible unwanted destruction of liberty in another person.

Addiction, you might have to pay higher taxes... or do you?

Firstly, just as you can deny someone support for welfare for being too fucking lazy, it is well within the bounds of liberty to deny someone welfare on the basis that they are addicted, either to heroin or to alcohol. Unless the person is in rehab and abstaining from alcohol, the person should have no right to welfare.

Lets not forget, that at least half of them would be addicted to alcohol, nonetheless.

Secondly, would you even pay higher taxes? Is there an economic advantage to paying all the extra taxes you currently pay in enforcement, police, the justice system and jails? Might it be that the extra burden on welfare is more than offset by the decrease in this spending, PLUS the extra taxes that can be collected on usage?

A user doesn't even have to naturally become a burden on society now to become a burden on society now.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

for the 278th time (none / 0) (#470)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:20:15 AM EST

you don't understand addiction

when you are lazy, you are choosing to be lazy. when you are an addict, you are not choosing to be lazy. the chemical is. do you understand? (obviously, you don't fucking understand in the least)

you can't change human nature, some people will be lazy. but you can fight a chemical. so society will do that, because by limiting access to the drug, they save themselves much money and grief from having to deal with a bunch of chemically created zombies

and yes, people can be addicted to alcohol, or videogames, or shemale bestiality, or whatever

but heroin is special. it's high addictive potential puts in clearly in the realm of "not worth saving all that money from the criminal justice system", because you will spend more supporting zombies in an environment that tolerates that poison, because they will proliferate like weeds in an environment that tolerates heroin

but of course you will disagree with that

because in your brain, addiction, and what it means philosophically, just doesn't exist

because you're a stubborn bore, with no real intelligence on an issue you fucking talk alot about, for some ignorant reason


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

what you don't understand (none / 0) (#471)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:53:17 AM EST

is that alcohol addiction is ADDICTION ASSHOLE.

ITS THE SAME FUCKING THING, MARIJUANA, HEROIN, CRACK, METH, ALCOHOL --- ADDICTION.

Addiction should be treated the same way, irrespective of the drug... the way you handle welfare should be treated equally too. There is no harm that is only a harm because of some cause.

You UNDERESTIMATE the addictiveness of alcohol, and OVERESTIMATE the addictiveness of heroin. You agreed with me earlier that it is only on the order of twice the addictiveness of alcohol, or about 10% of users, as opposed to 5% for alcohol.

Just as laziness is in some people's nature, so is taking drugs... Sorry, but that's a personal thing. Outlawing it has LITTLE effect on the rate of use.

because they will proliferate like weeds
You think that if marijuana was legalised, then its use would skyrocket? You think if sodomy was legalised, then its practice would skyrocket? Or rather, does homosexuality not exist when outlawed? Maybe far fewer homosexuals?

Do you really not use heroin just because its illegal?

All these things I've said 300x you fucking bore.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i just hit upon an interesting thought experiment (none / 1) (#472)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:41:07 AM EST

forget heroin for a moment

make believe there exists a drug you take a handful of times, and after that, for the rest of your life, there is a nagging voice, stronger at times of stress and depression, that urges you to take that drug (in other words, addiction)

make believe it's a HYPOTHETICAL drug, not heroin

is there a threshold, at all, where ther addictiveness of the drug means that it should be outlawed, even considering the prohibition effects, because the costs of the addiction is higher than the prohibition effects

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HEROIN

it's a HYPOTHETICAL DRUG

OR, do you believe that no matter how virulent the drug, it should still be legal and freely available, even if let's say, just using it once makes you crave it for the rest of your life in a nagging voice?

i'm asking you to choose:

  1. there is a hypothetical threshold across which a drug is so highly addictive, it must be outlawed, evne though that creates prohibition effects (say, for your mind, some future drug not yet invented)
  2. no matter how addictive the drug, no matter how virulent, it should still be legal

in other words, put aside heroin and alcohol for a moment, and let's zero in on something: the extent of your ignorance on the issue of addiction: i'm gauging the exact nature of your naivete on the issue

answer 1 or 2


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, you are right, Number 2 (none / 0) (#473)
by procrasti on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:37:33 PM EST

Assuming this drug is not like Bliss from Red Dwarf, where looking at it is enough to get you addicted, that you have to actively take it.

If there was a drug, that 99.9% of every instance you used it, you would forever, insatiably and completely crave that drug, that there is no limit to what a user will spend (after the first use) on it.... and furthermore, no matter how much (or little, again up to you) damage, physical or mental, it did to the user. No matter how much it destroys an individual's personal liberty... for the sake of liberty, by 'the harm principle', it should be legal.

Now, such a hypothetical drug would require, at the very least, that a buyer register the purchase, because giving it to someone else (without their consent, to a minor, or similar) would obviously be a crime, in violation of the harm principle.

Now, unfortunately, you haven't read On Liberty, so I'm going to have to go through the two cases, prohibition and non-prohibition, as best I can for you.

Lets assume the drug is prohibited. Lets also assume that there exists at least a few unscrupulous people who can create it and care more for money than people (okay, so its hypothetical). Finally, assume that someone takes it. How is that person going to pay for it? Well, if they give it to a couple of friends, they can now consume the profit. As long as there are people who think that maybe the government isn't always right, they outlawed marijuana after all, and their cool friend has taken more drugs than they have, and so far seems okay, maybe this drug isn't as bad as the government says either and they'll never get caught, there will always be new, naive, users. There will be a percentage of people to sell to, the use of the drug will grow and the profits to be made will also grow, up to whatever people can pay for it. The profits will grow such that every dealer the government takes out, a new one will replace with them --- in fact, the drug will ALWAYS cover the cost of enforcement, because it has PERFECT INELASTIC DEMAND. Those who can't maintain their habit through work will quickly turn to real crime to support it...

So, what's the outcome? An ever increasing user base, high enforcement costs, actually generating (through the laws of supply and demand) massive profits for the ultimate suppliers (the worst criminals you can imagine) and all paid for by crime perpetrated against you and me.

Now, what would happen if the government regulated the industry? The price would go down, so the criminal drug lords would be undercut by the government to the point of irrelevance. The government would know all suppliers and users, so they can make sure none of them are participating in any crimes (or neglecting any duties). If users turn to crime, or neglect their children, etc, they can be locked up and put to hard labour to pay back their debt to society. Anyone who thinks of taking up the habit could go to the place of sale and see for themselves the damaged people who use it, therefore being a direct discouragement.

So the result is less crime, no criminal gangs, increased taxes for the government, low enforcement costs, users who break the law get punished, users don't push on new people, potential new users can see the harm directly, leading to less overall use.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so you're an extremist (none / 0) (#474)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:52:16 PM EST

it's kind of like the abortion question (in terms of finding a balance, please don't read some moronic spin in the nature of why i am making that comparison... i use the allegory ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED TO FIND BALANCE. understand fuckknob? good): most people recognize there is a trade off between the question about when a human life starts and when you are ruining a woman's life for the sake of a blob. the extremists in that question are:

  1. life starts when the egg meets the sperm. a soul is formed! if you kill that it's like killing an adult or child human life! (uh... no you religious wackjobs)
  2. if the baby is going to ruin the woman's life, even infanticide is ok. you can kill a baby as it's not really conscious yet like an adult human being or child (uh... no you selfish sociopathic fuck)

the realistic answer to that question is a volatile balance:
  1. ok to abort in the first trimester
  2. somewhere in the second trimester it is ok... then not ok. where? who knows. this is life: complicated, emotional, not cut and dry
  3. not ok to abort in the third trimester

balance. see? i'm not bringing this up for you to start some long moronic argument about why the balance should be elsewhere on abortion, i'm not changing the subject to another long winded retarded argument with you, i am making this comparison to drugs and addiction ONLY to show you the need to find a balance SOMEWHERE. ANYWHERE. which YOU DON'T DO when it comes to the axis of addiction versus prohibition effects. you simply don't recognize the axis of addiction at all. insane

on the drug question, the same of sort of continuum exists, the same need for balance... but also with similar moronic halfwit extremists:

  1. all drugs should be outlawed. all of it: caffeine (mormons), alcohol (muslims), nicotine... all the way up to unholy trinity of meth/coke/heroin: outlaw all forms of drugs... this obviously is stupid religious nutbaggery here
  2. then we have the other butthead form of extremist, you: all drugs are ok, even some unimagined science fiction drug that addicts almost immediately. and much like the extremists on the abortion question, there is a sort of sociopathic selfishness and lack of foresight about what you are risking in terms of easy addiction to some of these fucking highly addictive substances

in other words, like the extremists on the abortion question, the extremists on the drug question are fucking retarded. that means you, moron

a very liberal, realistic answer (that's me): it's all ok, even the psychedelic drugs (as they are barely addictive)... except for the unholy trinity, because they are just way too addictive: amphetamines (meth), cocaine, and the opiates (heroin)

in other words, i'm a realistic moderate, and you're a fucking moronic extremist

that about sums up this entire discussion

i'm the moderate friend. you're the lunatic fringe

there is a balance, on all questions, in all things

that's the lesson here. that's what i understand, that's what you don't. addiction. you just don't fucking understand what it does to the topic. you're brain refuses, out of stubborn pride or unbridled selfishness or both, to examine what addiction means to this topic. EVEN when involving the opiates, the most addictive substances known to mankind. incredible. pathetic. blind as a bat

the buddhist way: the middle path. moderation

that's me

stupid moronic ignorant blind fringe

that's you

and, heh, moderation is a funny word in the context of this discussion (chuckle)

and this i think will be final post. i don't know how we can move forward here. i can't convince you, you can't convince me. and we both understand our positions clearly. i think this final post of mine nicely sums up our differences: on the tension balance between addiction and prohibition effects, i have adapted a prudent, intellignet, liberal, moderate position. and you've chosen extremist idiocy. like abortion, there is a balance that needs to be struck. and you're the lunatic fringe, and i'm the balanced moderate. i am in fact, way liberal compared to most (i allow marijuana, psychedelics, etc.)

you? you're just an ignorant turd, you don't understand addiction

so i wish you good luck trying to push your fringe views you moonbat. i give you an excellent chance ever forming a political base or social consensus on your moronic views on heroin and what "addiction" means (snicker). you'll die an old man, and you will see the world will be just as i describe it in moderate liberalism to drugs, only avoiding the most addictive drugs

or maybe you won't die an old man, but a young broken man, an addict, if you ever actually take the retarded advice you push (that would be hilarious if you have the views you have and you haven't actually taken heroin: it's wonderful! no downside to make it illegal! (snicker)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

LOL --- your entire argument summed up (none / 0) (#475)
by procrasti on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:58:46 PM EST

You're an extremist!!!

BWAHAHAHAHA

Oh, no logic, no refutation of the effects of prohibition vs regulation. No understanding, or refutation, of 'the harm principle'.

Just --- You're a moonbat extremist.

Yep... compelling.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

it's over friend (none / 0) (#476)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:07:09 AM EST

on all question involving a tension between two demands on human nature, a blance must be reached. this is intelligence and wisdom

if you are too ignorant to understand that that tension exists, you're an extremist

you think this is funny because i am saying that labelling you an extremist destroys your intelligence on the issue, like an empty epithet, an empty insult thrown at you

but actually, yes it does destroy your intelligence on the issue, because i have adequately demonstrated to you your inability to consider a valid piece of that balance of tension on the question: addiction

you fail to incorporate addiciton in your worldview. therefore, you are an ignorant extremist

you lose friend. theis argument has no more ground to cover

in the end, you simply don't understand addiction, and how it shatters your worldview

you are a simpleton

you will not consider a valid and important piece of the topic, and so you lose, and you're a stupid blind extremist


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes, its over, you lose (none / 0) (#477)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:09:58 AM EST

Balance means finding an optimal solution, you have ignored that the solution creates more problems than it solves, even for the most dangerous addictive hypothetical drug in existence, therefore it is no balance at all.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
that's contradictory moron (none / 0) (#478)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:14:29 AM EST

read what you just wrote. see if your retarded addled brain can parse that bullshit


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
What is contradictory? (none / 0) (#479)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:17:37 AM EST

That balance means finding an optimum?

Really?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0) (#480)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:20:05 AM EST

balance means finding an optimum between two contradictory forces

you said that one side of that tension, addiction, isn't an issue at all

you're "balance" is not 50-50, or 20-80, or 80-20. it's 0-100

which makes you a fucking extremist moron

a major important issue, about which it is impossible to consider the subject of drugs: addiction, to you, it simply doesn't matter at all

ergo: you're an extremist moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Addiction does matter (none / 0) (#481)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:23:42 AM EST

But prohibition has never made an unsafe drug safer.

Prohibition, as I pointed out above, will cause more people to become addicted.

Prohibition will make drug cartels more effective.

Only regulation can mitigate the effects of addiction, by making the results of addiction obvious to anyone who cares to see.

Read Mill one day.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

addiction matters huh? (none / 0) (#482)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:46:25 AM EST

that's directly contradcitory to a number of statements above

so you're not even a moron, you have some of brain dementia, as you can't even keep track of what you stand for

if it matters, fucktard, then there is some point at which addiction outweighs prohibition

at what point is that oh dear great swami?

looking forward to your statement that contradcts what you've said before and you will contradict in a few more posts

in other words, you're either an absolutist, an extremist, or a case of dementia

in short, it's not worth talking to you anymore

you can't convince an extremist of anything

and you can't have a discussion with someone with dementia

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I explained already that regulation decreases (none / 0) (#483)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:52:53 AM EST

addiction.

That is how you fight addiction... Make its effects obvious.

Prohibition DOES NOTHING to decrease addiction. It promotes an underground network that ensnares more users than regulation.

Please explain how prohibition would decrease the number of addicts to this hypothetical drug. All you have done is complain that it is not a balance, and avoided the fact that it won't help AT ALL.

Because of its PERFECT addictiveness, the economics shows that prohibition only worsens what you are trying to solve.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you decrease addiction (none / 0) (#484)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:57:56 AM EST

by making a highly addictive drug more freely available

(mouth hanging open)

you're a fucking genius

i mean that in the most sarcastic way, you fucking dimwit


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, Read Mill or my first comment on this drug (none / 0) (#485)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:01:53 AM EST

By making it available, anyone who thinks of trying it will see a group of souls, broken by the thing they are thinking of trying, so they don't use it. The effect is obviously the drug.

Outlaw it, and it spreads from addict to new user, in secret, no one sees the damage until its too late, and the cycle repeats, faster than above.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so (none / 0) (#486)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:11:33 AM EST

people decide to take drugs based on perfectly reasonable considerate prudent rational decision making

they are never pressured, they are never depressed, they are never stupid, they are never confused, x1000 other reasons

all human beings, in your world, make the prudent decision not to try drugs

...and amazingly, this happens because society freely allows it

meanwhile, (mouth hanging open) people take drugs in prohibition, simply because society says don't take it

(falls to the ground)

you're 13 years old right?

please say your 13 years old. i don't think it is possible for me to experience less respect for a person in my entire life

dude: you're idea of how people function and make decisions about drugs is the most severest form of delusional retardation i have encountered in years

you are seriously telling me that when society allows an addictive drug, people take none of it in perfect rational thought... meanwhile, if they outlaw it, people turn into rabid drug crazed morons

because what society's allows/ doesn't allow is the sole decider of decision making for taking drugs, right?

this tells me volumes about your personal issues

and that's all i've learned in this thread: you're a teenager with daddy issues. you're not a mature person. you're 13 years old. if not actually chronologically 13 years old, you are mentally 13 years old

you are mentally retarded. no really. genuinely. you're social development is stunted in the teenage years: "my daddy said not to spray paint so i'm going to go spray paint"

you actually believe this is a foundational aspect of human psychology

no, moron, it's a foundational aspect of your retarded social development

utterly incredibly deluded

you are a work of art sir

a genuine fucking extremist moron, with shades of dementia, and stunted social development

please, take some heroin, and die an addict, soon. knowing what i know of your mentality, i don't know how you can function in society. you're so fucking wacked it's not even funny. you're mentality and your ability to reason is dangerously dysfunctional


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you failed to read my comment, obviously (none / 0) (#487)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 01:21:44 AM EST

People are pressured, peer pressure, by addicted friends who tell them its a good idea to take this drug... they don't believe the government, because they have nothing other than 'propaganda' to guide them, they can't see the effects it has on people... the 'friend' then sells them the drug to support his own habit, and the cycle repeats.

Or, its regulated, sold and consumed at a licensed residence. Obviously some people are going to use it, they would use it ANYWAY... but someone goes along, thinking they might try this drug, and when they get to the licensed premises, they see people destroyed by the drug, they are LESS LIKELY to use it. The danger of the drug is obvious BY EXAMPLE.

No amount of taking out dealers will have ANY effect of the supply... because demand is PERFECTLY inelastic, because the drug is PERFECTLY addictive. You literally CANNOT decrease its availability. All you can do is make the effects of the drug public and obvious by example. This also decreases crime and power going to violent cartels. By regulating it, you concentrate the supply to KNOWN locations, that police can then monitor for illegal activities.

I have a very strong feeling you read the title of my reply the question of this drug without reading the comment.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

there are MANY reasons people take drugs (none / 0) (#488)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:40:52 AM EST

do you fucking understand that moron?

you think making it more available is going to do anything but make more addicts?

you DO?

THEN YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD

it's like watching a fly stuck behind a window

you're stupid, pathetic, and demented

100% loser

fucking idiot


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Fucking for virgininity (none / 0) (#489)
by procrasti on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 12:23:35 AM EST

Look, when it comes to these drugs, you are Nancy Reagan and I am Cheech and Chong. Who do you think understands why people take drugs more?

Mill says that by making the negative effects obvious, people can learn by that example:
With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.

But, we are talking the PERFECT ADDICTIVE DRUG...

If this drug existed today, I would be just as likely to use it as aspirin... because I have NO REASON to believe that it is as dangerous as we presume --- because there are no REAL examples of the harm it causes, under an available system the harm is OBVIOUS BY EXAMPLE --- This is one result of the Swiss experiment, where heroin usage DECREASED!!! DO YOU GET THAT?

For example, I know many Meth users, NOT ONE looks like those WORST CASE examples you see on the anti drug websites. Maybe if they were all concentrated in one place, I would see how bad it was, and would be disinclined to use it.

Even pot usage decreases where it is available. Compare #3 and #9.

Please explain how you can possibly decrease availability. Do you have any understanding of economics? Just explain to me how you are going to do this... Are you going to confiscate the drug when you find it? Lock up dealers maybe? What about locking up users?

If you confiscate and lock dealers up, you JUST DRIVE UP THE PRICE... this does not affect availability.... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? PERFECT ADDICTION --> PERFECT INELASTIC DEMAND. Economics 101.

If you lock up users, you have two effects... Firstly, you decrease demand only as long as a user is locked up (PERFECT ADDICTION) and he will take it up again the day he gets out... And Secondly, you have made a statement to society that the WORST EFFECT OF THIS DRUG IS PRISON... Therefore you are tacitly saying its NOT THAT DANGEROUS... a message which is in fact far more dangerous than regulating the drug and letting the users be their own warning example to others.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

this is the difference between you and i: (none / 0) (#490)
by circletimessquare on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:26:05 AM EST

this is a fucking shame

and i say it is because of the addictiveness of the highly addictive drugs in question here

and you say it is because the drugs were made illegal

which to me, is like blaming AIDS on homosexuality, rather than blaming AIDS on a virus

THE DRUG IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM

THE ADDICTIVE MOTHERFUCKING DRUG

YOU ARE FUCKING BRAINDEAD MORON FOR THINKING IT IS DUE TO OTHER FACTORS

do you blame AIDS on homosexuality?

SAME FUCKING THINGS WITH DRUGS MORON

THE

HIGH

ADDICTIVENESS

OF

THE

DRUGS

IS

THE

FUCKING

PROBLEM

YOU FUCKING

IGNORANT

ASSHOLE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ps: Fucking for Virginity (none / 0) (#491)
by circletimessquare on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:47:49 AM EST

this is the refrain used by retarded peaceniks about the insanity of waging war for peace (when in fact, force is the only way you can ever achieve peace in the world)

what i love about "Fucking for Virginity" in this context is that Mill, your hero, the original neocon, and rightfully on my side than yours, was gung ho about waging war on the colonies, ie, Fucking for Virginity

just wanted to stab that fork in your eye about your stupid hero, moron

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-JS MILL

WAR ON HIGHLY ADDICTIVE DRUGS

FOREVER

FOR GREATER FREEDOM FROM ADDICTION

AS AGREED TO BY YOUR HERO MILL

teehee ;-)

I AM MILL

I Fucked Her, and Made Her a Virgin

It is a frequent refrain: "You can't fuck for virginity" as a call against waging war for peace. Except that, you CAN fuck for virginity. The real world is replete with phenomena that appears to be logical contradictions or enigmas on the surface, but make sense when you understand the dynamics of how the real world and real human nature works. In other words: you abort unwanted fetuses to help children. You allow gay marriage to strengthen family values. Both of these statements are true, and are liberal notions, and yet, are surface contradictions.

A mother who can't support an unwanted and therefore unloved child should be allowed the option to abort an unwanted fetus so that she can arrive at a more economically and emotionally supportive environment to bring into this world a wanted, loved child. She shouldn't be forced to support an unwanted mistake, while the father is simply unseen and allowed to get away with impregnation and then desertion. Likewise, a loving gay couple can raise an adoptive or alternatively conceived child in a superior fashion to plenty of heterosexual couples who, for many common reasons, make awful dysfunctional parents. Why should one be allowed to exist and the other denied? The bottom line is the raising of healthy, happy, well-loved children, not simple biology of conception.

And so the surface contradiction goes: peace is achieved by the outward exertion of ideologically superior ideas. Peace is not achieved when ideologically repugnant ideas like authoritarianism are allowed to exist and blossom unopposed. An ideology exerts an outward pressure, and blossoms, or it doesn't exert an outward pressure, and it dies. In other words, believe it or not, peace is served by war. You can fuck for virginity. Virginity is not a stable state of existence: you eventually have sex, just like never fighting for your beliefs is not a stable state of existence: your beliefs will be challenged some day, and you must fight for them, or change your mind, or submit to inferior ideas. People who never fuck die leaving no children, and fade from the earth. Just as those who don't fight for what they believe leave no ideological offspring, and fade from the Earth.



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I know where the statement came from (none / 0) (#492)
by procrasti on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:47:36 PM EST

That's why I was loathed to use it... but I am talking about a similar contradiction .

Mill was always talking about people who don't fight against AUTHORITARIAN governments, and those with no civilisation, such as the barbarians. If you read his essay there is NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, to support the idea that he is against addictive drugs.

In fact, this link supports the idea that we should FIGHT AGAINST PROHIBITION. And so I do.

As for that story, yes, its very sad... MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS PUSHING DRUGS ON PEOPLE!!!! PEOPLE PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES TO MAKE $5 TO BUY 33c WORTH OF DRUGS.

Every day they must raise money for 15 days worth of drugs.

They take the WORST DRUGS because they ARE THE CHEAPEST.

So, yes... all that damage is AT THE VERY LEAST, EXACERBATED by the ILLEGALITY of the drugs.

As Mexican drug cartels have grown in power, they have begun to open up local markets for cheap forms of highly addictive drugs
...
Street crime is common.
...
how their dependence ... turned them into dealers
...
hooked on ... and became a prostitute at age 13
...
Soon he took to selling the drug to finance his habit.
...
Most of them start out using the drug as a form of speed, trying to stay awake to work longer.
...
started using ... as a lark when he was 15

Everything I said happens as a result of the illegality. People push it on others to support their own habit -- therefore spreading the damage. They sell it to children just as readily (or more so, knowing they aren't cops) as they do to adults. They get it for noble ends, but having no direct examples they don't see the dangers. They get it, at first, from people who seem to be fine, instead of going into a centre where lots of addicts serve as direct examples of the dangers of the drug.

NO DRUG WAS EVER MADE SAFER BY ITS PROHIBITION.

In fact, all you have pointed out are the effects of addictive drugs, WHEN THEY ARE PROHIBITED. BWHAHAHAHAAHA

Retard.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

authoritarianism is real and evil (none / 0) (#493)
by circletimessquare on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:50:06 PM EST

for killing freedoms

and addiction is WORSE

by ANY measure

for ANY freedom stealing crime you can pin on an authoritarian government

ALL of the examples you demonstrate above about the evils of authoritarianism i agree with 100%

AND ADDICTION IS STILL WORSE BY ALL MEASURES

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT ADDICTION DOES TO SOMEBODY

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT IS THE CHEMICAL

THE CHEMICAL

THE CHEMICAL ITSELF

THAT IS THE CULPRIT

NOT THE BEHAVIOR

NOT THE BEHAVIOR

SURROUNDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TAKING THE DRUG

DO

YOU

FUCKING

UNDERSTAND

WHAT

ADDICTION

IS

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>CHEMICALLY<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<

YOU BLIND DIMWITTED FUCK???????????

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The RISK of addiction is NOT worse than a dictator (none / 1) (#494)
by procrasti on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:58:56 PM EST

Dude, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Many people get addicted.

Many people don't.

No matter how addictive a drug, SOME PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS USE IT RESPONSIBLY.

We do not, in a civilised society, make one group of peoples failures the reason to PUNISH another group of people without that failure.

Absolute proof you are wrong that a CHEMICAL can be anyway as bad as a DICTATOR:
Would you rather be addicted to a clean constant supply of heroin, or have your friends and family killed, be waterboarded, and have your testicles wired up to the grid while someone punches you repeatedly in the face and then sent to work in the salt mines till you die of starvation?

FUCKING STUPID RETARD -- DON'T COMPARE THE TWO AGAIN

Addiction, if it can be fulfilled, WOULD NOT BOTHER ME --- ABSOLUTELY FUCKING SERIOUSLY!!!

I won't kill you for my cigarettes, as long as they are available, I won't kill you for my cocaine, as long as it is available, and I won't kill you for my heroin, as long as it is available, but beware if you get in my way, because then I have every right to harm you.

Just because you are scared of the ground, doesn't mean I shouldn't base jump. You are a crypt-fascist disguised as a libertarian -- as this thread shows, you are scared of heights, so your INSTINCTS are to outlaw base jumping, parkour, motorcycling w/o helmet off public roads, anything that scares you should be illegal. Exactly the behaviour of the majority Mill tried to warn us about.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0) (#495)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:12:01 AM EST

some people can drive 120 mph all the time responsibly (or think they can, for a time)

therefore, there should be no speed limits

let me ask you something:

how exactly does addiction start, according to you?

and how exactly does one escape it, according to you?

you REALLY have no idea what addiction is like

and your ignorance is so profoundly chilling, i actually fear for you. you are a future addict, if not currently one


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, but I understand your mistake now (none / 0) (#496)
by procrasti on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:03:12 AM EST

For one, I put that speeding thing to rest... No one can speed responsibly. Even more so, because your speed cannot be handled by other road users. Stop repeating this like its some reasonable analogy.

Now, the reason you are so against addiction is that it can override a person's will... Therefore it can destroy a person's personal liberty, right?

What can override addiction? Is there a force powerful enough that it can destroy not only a person's personal liberty and override their own will power and choice, but it can even override a person's addiction. If addiction would compel someone to some action, is there a more powerful force that can override that action, overriding addiction?

Now, unlike addiction, the cause of which can be freely chosen or avoided, the force that can override it is NEVER CHOSEN by the person it affects.

So, what force is stronger than addiction? What force should NOT be used against addiction, because it is so powerful, such a blunt instrument, often wielded incorrectly and never chosen by a person as a solution to their problems?

Get it?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

no, you still don't understand addiction (none / 0) (#497)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 11:47:13 AM EST

governmental force: thugs use violent physical force on you and imprison or torture you. what about your mind? it is still free. there are freedom fighters who wrote journals extending their cause while incarcerated. possible, because their MINDS were still free

addiction: when you are depressed, when you are stressed, when life is hard: "just take the drug. just wrap yourself in a blanket of escape from your problems. when you return, your problems will be worse, but in the meantime, just do this now..." it fogs your very mind. for your entire life. if said freedom fighter were addicted to heroin instead of imprisoned, his mind would change, his very will to fight for freedom would be clouded... "so we must overthrow this totalitarian government. to do that we should... the gas pipelines... umm... this is so hard... i just need a fix... i'll get back to this tomorrow... i need some bliss..."

so you've effectively turned a freedom fighter into a stool slug. how? because, unlike ANYTHING a totalitarian government could do, you've destroyed HIS MIND

those bars, ON THE MIND, represent a form of freedom destruction more powerful than any torture or imprisonment use of physical violence any totalitarian regime could ever imagine

when the bars against your freedom are IN YOUR MIND, via AN ADDICTIVE DRUG, it is WORSE than any totalitarian government that could ever exist could ever do to you

your identity, your goals, your dreams and your desires are eaten by addictive drugs. THAT is evil freedom destruction on a scale you simply don't understand


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you still don't understand the state (none / 0) (#498)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 01:11:26 AM EST

The state is stronger than any addiction.

Of course it can destroy the mind... don't be so stupid. Anything addiction can do, the state can do 100x worse.

Everything you said above of addiction can be done by the state.

The state can even ADDICT that freedom fighter. In fact, for controlling thought, the state has drugs 100x more powerful than heroin.

The state's power is UNLIMITED... and only through keeping it in check can we keep it under control.

We should not increase the state's power because some people do things you don't like. It is not a legitimate use of the state.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

wait (none / 0) (#499)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:46:13 AM EST

"The state can even ADDICT that freedom fighter. In fact, for controlling thought, the state has drugs 100x more powerful than heroin."

you prove me wrong by using an argument i have already made (that the most totalitarian state would use heroin, not outlaw it)?

you prove me wrong by saying "B is worse than A because B can use A"

wtf?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hello, in your own words:

"The state can even ADDICT that freedom fighter. In fact, for controlling thought, the state has drugs 100x more powerful than heroin."

thanks for proving me right: if the most powerful tool the totalitarian state can use is the tool i say is worse than the totalitarian state, you've made my argument moron!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, but it is still only a TOOL the state can use (none / 0) (#500)
by procrasti on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:32:46 AM EST

The state can use any set of tools it likes.

It can lock you in a room, 24x7. I can do that to myself if I like, but its a different matter when it's forced on me - and should only be forced on me when I harm others or fail in a duty I owe.

Like I said, I really couldn't care less to be addicted to something, as long as I can get it.

I do care about being imprisoned, beaten and raped - and that is what a DEMOCRATIC state will do to me, in order to protect myself from the potential evil of addiction that frightens you so much.

As you give up more power to any state to protect you from yourself (which is what addiction is, as you have failed utterly to show it as a harm to others), the harm it will do to you in order to achieve that will continue to go up.

Also, again, the state is a very blunt instrument whose goals are very rarely achieved by its actions. In other words, would you give up pot if you were imprisoned for it?

PS: I love how you used Mill in your story, without ever reading the essay he is best known for. Classic.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

hey moron (none / 0) (#501)
by circletimessquare on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:47:39 AM EST

if the worst tool a government can use is a nuclear bomb

and people are running around privately setting off their own nuclear bombs

then the government isn't the problem anymore, the freelance nuclear bombs are

you're the one that desribed addiction as the worst tool a totalitarian government can use

you're really quite retarded

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

wtf retard, where did I say it was the worst? (none / 0) (#502)
by procrasti on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:00:46 AM EST

I said that it could do that AND MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

If A can do B, but B can't do A, A is more dangerous and powerful than B.

Seriously, comparing a nuke to an addictive substance, willingly taken, is retarded, but, even a nuke is not as powerful as the state that wields it.

Now, tell me, if you wanted to smoke dope, do you think the government could stop you without forever locking you up?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so let me get this straight (none / 0) (#503)
by circletimessquare on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:32:59 AM EST

the worse thing that can happen to you from the government is X, but if X happens to you on your own, it's not so bad

so, according to you, what makes X is bad is that the government does it to you, not that X is really awful all by itself

so if the government shoots you in the kneecap, it's hell on earth. but if you shoot yourself in the kneecap, not so bad. because, of course, it doesn't matter that you have no kneecap, just how you lost your kneecap

wtf?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you realize you're a fucking delusional space monkey, right?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Of course, THATS called FREEDOM retard (none / 0) (#504)
by procrasti on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:55:28 AM EST

If you want to have rough anal sex with a 220 pound hairy violent type guy, that's love, but if the government forces you to be with a 220 pound hairy violent type guy who wants rough anal sex with you, that's rape... even though you'll still have anal bleeding, bruises and end up as his little bitch either way.

Can you understand the difference?

The whole point of freedom is being able to fail, lose and suffer the natural consequences of your actions. Its not about being forced to make the right decisions all the time.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i agree 100%! (none / 0) (#505)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:05:25 AM EST

you should be the one making the choices, all the time in life

BUT WHEN YOU ARE AN ADDICT, YOU AREN'T MAKING THE CHOICES ANYMORE, A CHEMICAL IS

but when you are an addict, you aren't making the choices anymore

therefore, addiction is far worse than anything any government could ever do to you, because whereas governmental force is an outside violent and crude trangression, you still have the freedom of your mind. with addiction, YOU DON'T OWN YOUR OWN MIND ANYMORE

man this argument is getting too easy

you simply do not understand the philosophical implications and real life reality of what addiciton means, and how it destroys your pov

when you are an addict, YOU ARE NOT FREE. you are NOT MAKING THE CHOICES ANYMORE

do you FUCKING undestand that?!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Until you are an addict you are making your own (none / 0) (#506)
by procrasti on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:42:07 AM EST

choices, agree?

Therefore to risk becoming an addict is YOUR OWN FUCKING CHOICE, and therefore you should be free to make it. Right retard?

Even AS AN ADDICT, if you get the drugs you want/need, then you are STILL FREE TO MAKE CHOICES.

Being an addict is like needing air... As long as you have air, you are free... If someone rationed your air, by making it illegal, guess what you'd be thinking of all the time. That's what being an addict without a drug is like.

Otherwise, what you say applies EQUALLY to alcoholism, no?

For an addict, drugs are no more than an extra level of need thrown into Maslow's hierarchy. You still OWN YOUR OWN MIND.

Glad at least you agree that the government doing something to you is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to doing something to yourself of your own free choice. At least now you have to agree that the STATE is MANY TIMES more powerful than addiction

Now, can you agree, that with all this power, they still have zero ability to stop you smoking pot?

Here's another analogy for you... Drugs are like an old broken down, out of service bridge. It looks like fun to go play on the bridge, but even of those who think they can handle it, imagine 80% or so fall to their death or end up in lifetime care.

Is this a reasonable analogy? If so, would you stop someone playing on the bridge?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

hello world (none / 1) (#507)
by circletimessquare on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:03:10 AM EST

i'd like the above post to serve as a mental snapshot of the kind of person i am arguing with here

look at the mental gyrations and gymnastics the person is performing above, in order to arrive at the conclusion that 1+1=3

let's just put it this way friend:

if that's what you really want to believe about addiction, you're suffocating self-delusion on the subject matter is of such a gravity warping amount that no amount of logic on my end can reverse your voyage into the insane

i can't argue with you, because you are 10,000 light years beyond logical rhetorical argument

so there i sno point in convincing you of simple truths, for in your mind insane pseudoreligious notions of an alternate reality have a deathgrip on the way you think about the issue

in short, i am 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong, but no amount of simple logic and reason will convince you, simply because you are beyond logic and reason

i just want the above post to serve as a mental checkpoint for me, for me to look at, and for me to understand that in this world, some people are truly fucking deluded to the extent that all channels of logic and reason are clogged beyond all possible avenues of return to the real world

you're doomed, and there's nothing i can say that will bring you back to reality

because to say what you just said above, you are now in the same orbit as this guy in how you think

you: "slavery is freedom"

that's where you stand, with incredible conviction

incredible


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

WOOOHOOOO I WIN YOU LOSE!!!!!! (none / 0) (#508)
by procrasti on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:28:57 AM EST

No argument from you == I win.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i can't make an argument (none / 0) (#509)
by circletimessquare on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:40:29 PM EST

with the insane

your understanding of the real world nature and philosophical implications of addiction is warped

i can't make an argument with you if you think about addiciton things about addiciton that are not true

in this entire thread you proven yourself immune to logic and reason, and a grasp on reality

so in a way, yes, you've won this argument, but you won it before there ever was an argument: you live in a fnatasy world, with fantasy rules. what power have i with reality and reason over that?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You could have easily argued against the (none / 0) (#510)
by procrasti on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 02:03:38 AM EST

individual statements I made, or the conclusions drawn from them. As I argued against yours.

You choose not to, therefore you lose - because my statements are based in logic, whether insane or just so sane they blow your mind.

You do not understand addiction, slavery, freedom or the state - and I've pointed out too many contradictions in your thinking for you to deal with.

Here are some things I know that you don't:
   An alcoholic is an addict.
   An addict needs drugs, but is otherwise free.
   Legality has little desired effect on use.
   Liberty means letting people make decisions that naturally limit their liberty.
   My liberty is not hindered by suffering an addict to live.

Anyway, read Mill... get some insight, or continue with your strategy of non argument based name calling, it really strengthens your case. If you chose to actually argue, answer the questions I posed you 2 replies above - or accept your loss for now and STFU.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

i have already demonstrated reality to you 1000x (none / 0) (#511)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:42:36 AM EST

and you don't see it

you support, in the name of freedom, that which destroys freedom, and it destroys freedom more certainly than any governmental entity that has ever existed or could ever theoretically exist

because addiction robs you of your freedom, in your mind

and heroin, cocaine, and meth are in a class of addictive potential that makes their freedom robbing abilities so certain and so quick, they cannot be tolerated by ANY people who love freedom

you, who fight for freedom... by promoting that which destroys freedom most effectively than the most nazi despotic totalitarian regime that could ever exist on this planet

and you don't see that, because you simply don't understand what addiction means

which therefore mans it is impossible to argue with you, because you have demosntrated with solid immovable ignorance and blindness your unwillingness to accept how addictive heroin, cocaine and meth are as compared to any other drug

you won't accept these aspects of reality:

  1. what addiction means to freedom, why it is the most potent destroyer of freedom
  2. why coke, heroin, and meth's addiction potential is so virulent they must be fought, with ALL of the prohibition effects recognized and acknowledged by me, but STILL much smaller negatives than the addiction that runs rampantr in a society that tolerates that which destroys freedom so quickly, effectively, permanently

you don't udnerstand addiction, what it really is, what it really means with something like heroin, coke, meth

and so there is no argument with you, because you will not acknowledge reality

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Because you are repeating failed arguments: (none / 0) (#512)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 01:00:07 AM EST

Until you are an addict you are making your own choices, agree?

Therefore to risk becoming an addict is YOUR OWN FUCKING CHOICE, and therefore you should be free to make it. Right retard?

You as a free person, have a right to severely limit your own freedom. You fat intolerable fuck. 'Winston W9079 touch your toes. You aren't trying!'

Even AS AN ADDICT, if you get the drugs you want/need, then you are STILL FREE TO MAKE CHOICES.

Being an addict is like needing air... As long as you have air, you are free... If someone rationed your air, by making it illegal, guess what you'd be thinking of all the time. That's what being an addict without a drug is like.

How much freedom does an alcoholic have?

For an addict, drugs are no more than an extra level of need thrown into Maslow's hierarchy. You still OWN YOUR OWN MIND. Therefore you freedom is merely limited. A nazi completely destroys your freedom -- COMPLETELY, far more so than drugs retard, and you know it.

Glad at least you agree that the government doing something to you is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to doing something to yourself of your own free choice. At least now you have to agree that the STATE is MANY TIMES more powerful than addiction

Now, can you agree, that with all this power, they still have zero ability to stop you smoking pot?

Here's another analogy for you... Drugs are like an old broken down, out of service bridge. It looks like fun to go play on the bridge, but even of those who think they can handle it, imagine 80% or so fall to their death or end up in lifetime care.

Is this a reasonable analogy? If so, would you stop someone playing on the bridge?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the certainty of addiction (none / 0) (#513)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:53:59 AM EST

due to heorin coke and meth put them in a special category

i've said this about 10,000x to you so far

do you have some sort of dementia?

zzz


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

15% is not certainty by any standard (none / 0) (#514)
by procrasti on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 12:17:44 AM EST

Nor is addiction worse than a Nazi concentration camp. You are a moron caught up more in moral panic than reality - Hence your lack of ability to argue with facts and the resort to hyperbole.

Do you think people don't know that these things are addictive? Once a person knows the risks, the risks must be theirs to take. Insofar as they do not harm others.

Also consider, if a person is a slave to addiction, you cannot hold them responsible for their actions when they harm you. It was the addiction that did it. Is this right? Are drug addicts not guilty of crimes they commit?

If they are guilty of the crimes they commit, they must have acted of their own freewill, therefore they are not slaves to the drug.

Which is it?

If the government can't stop you smoking pot, how much less likely is to stop someone using a drug you claim to be so certainly addictive? Or you think that the more addictive a drug, the less people will continue to use it? what?

Therefore, government is a poor blunt instrument, not only in reducing supply (it will match demand) but also in reducing demand. That might explain why drugs are becoming ever more widely used and available.

But, I forget, you must do something, and this is something. Blowing your brains out against a wall is something to, why don't you do that?

So, with the 'certainty' of falling off the bridge, why isn't it a good metaphor?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you keep arguing as if (none / 0) (#515)
by circletimessquare on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 02:49:07 PM EST

all drugs are the same. i really don't have much to disagree with you above. and so, with most substances, they should be legal for all the reasons you believe in. because i believe in them too

you are reaching for a complex understanding of the issue, and yet you fail it, because you want to look at all drugs the same. if you got as complex an understanding as you could, you would understand that meth, coke, and heroin reach a level of addictiveness that doesn't ALTER your observations, but ADDS to your observations in such a way that any sane governmental policy keeps these evil 3 illegal

Drugs can't be treated as some blanket issue. Marijuana is nonaddictive, has mild negative physical effects, and not does not cause violent behavior. And this is confirmed by empirical evidence, studies, and the opinions of the medical and scientific community.

Cocaine is perhaps the most addictive substance on earth, has moderate to heavy negative physical effects, and often causes violent behavior. This is confirmed by empirical evidence, studies, and the opinions of the medical and scientific community.

Heroin is highly addictive, has heavy negative physical effects, and while it does not often cause violent behavior, users are often violent when removed from the drug. This is confirmed by empirical evidence, studies, and the opinions of the medical and scientific community.

You have to take it issue by issue, otherwise we get bogged down in morality and principle, when we should really be focusing on the public health and sane drug laws.

Marijuana should obviously be legal, as the people in general would not be negatively affected, and it is desired by a fair margin of the people. Thus, it would be against the theory of a fairly-governed society for marijuana to be illegal.

Cocaine and Heroin can be illegal in a fairly-governed society, in my opinion, as the people in general would be highly negatively harmed by its introduction, and it is despised by a fair margin of the people who have any real experience with the drug, because they understand what the drugs really represent.

Cocaine and Heroin cannot, cannot, cannot be safely used by 99% of people. I guarantee if you spent one day in an inner city ER, you would agree with that. and no, dorothy, all of those er room visits ar enot because the government doesn't give out free safe drugs, it is because of the drugs themselves, what it does to human behavior


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

COPYPASTA! You are not Riotcow, you filthy (none / 0) (#516)
by procrasti on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 02:00:54 AM EST

thieving bitch.

My arguments above don't even apply to marijuana, as (you think) it doesn't make you a slave asshole. My philosophical arguments are based on drugs that you think enslave you, such as cocaine, heroin and meth.

BTW, the drugs are different, and require different laws, you, Mill and I all agree, but prohibition is not the answer for any drug.

Heroin, btw, unless adulterated or in unknown dosage is actually quite physically safe, so that has everything to do with the illegality of it.

If you hung out in ER you would see that 99% of people cannot safely drive. Selection bias retard. Riotcow doesn't know what he's talking about.

Anyway, that's not an argument, if anything its agreement plus cop-out, so GFYYFFFADIAFF.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

(snicker) yes copypasta, good catch ;-) (none / 0) (#517)
by circletimessquare on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:40:47 AM EST

what, you expect me to be interesting and creative all the time when faced with the same moronic braindead stupidity?

No, sorry, this is ridiculous. Let's set aside the question of why should we care about cutting down ovedose deaths and the spread of HIV and Hep. C. It only spreads among the bums and they are already hellbent on throwing their lives away. But let's set that aside and remember that the arguments for legal shooting galleries are the same arguments that were trotted out for giving away free needles. It will cut down on disease and it will reduce crime cuz the needles are free. But there was an unintended consequence: a walk through any park shows us more hypodermic needles than pine needles. It's impossible to say what will be the unintended consequence of legal shooting galleries, but there will be one. At the very least, drug dealing will go up right outside these legal shooting galleries. Why foist that on the Tenderloin? It helps the wrong people. There are good people in the Tenderloin, and their rights should come before the rights of drug addicts.

JUST SAY NO (to this)!!! Goodness, this IS ridiculous. San Francisco residents are speaking up more and more, daily. And just about the same old issues. They don't want anymore IV drug users or homeless people. What's the hold up??? This is just a lazy answer for the problem. Since we can't get these people off drugs and back on track. Or at the very least, off drugs-we're going to give them a safe haven? Puh-lease.

Efforts like this are exactly why San Francisco has such a huge homeless/drug user population. As long as this city is considered "more friendly" to junkies... guess what? We'll have more junkies than other cities.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

be interesting and creative (none / 0) (#518)
by procrasti on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:07:58 AM EST

"George Bush says `we are losing the war on drugs.' Well, you know what that implies? There's a war going on...and people on drugs are winning it! Well, what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side.

Not you.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

darling (none / 0) (#519)
by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:02:51 PM EST

find one single creative individual who thinks their heroin addiction helped their lives

there certainly are a lot of them

there certainly are a lot of stupid self-destructive people in the world

and most will admit to that fact at the end: how much better their lives would be without the drugs. usually those lives are short, unfortunaterly, because of the drugs

and yes, the war on drugs is like the war on pedophilia: nothing you will ever do will stop the creation of pedophiles. but you must fight them forever nonetheless

nothing you ever do will stop the creation of drug addicts. there are always self-destructive people. but you must fight them anyways

for the sake of those who would otherwise not be drug addicts. so they don't meet a sel-destructive individual, and destroy their lives as well, simply for being open minded about that which you cannot have an open mind about: drug addiction

which is why your hero will doesn't apply to highly addictive drugs: if a gambling addict goes bankrupt, he doesn't virally create more gamblers around him. but drug addicts do. they spread their addiction

drug addiction: it promises happiness, it delivers death

the human will cannot over come it

and so it must be fought, forever, in spite of the losers who will embrace it forever, in self-destructive idiocy

the war on drugs is an attempt to contain the damage these losers do

but you, you won't admit to the damage drug addiction does to the innocent, or the price paid is worth it, or that we should provide cheap free quality heroin to losers

why?

so they can spread their addiction?

no. let them rot in prison


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

drug addiction is viral (none / 0) (#520)
by procrasti on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:49:34 AM EST

because they sell it to pay for their habit.

Stop that, and it stops being viral.

Make it available and it stops spreading.

Pot use is viral too, so throw away the keys for those idiots who think pot is happiness, when it makes them slow, stupid, lazy and sit on the couch all day and go on welfare.

And yet there are people who say their drug use HAS had a positive aspect on their lives. Who are you to say they are wrong? Even if this is true for just 1 person, they should have that right.

Paedophilia destroys the lives of innocent others, drugs destroy only the lives of those who make it their choice.

Not one person (outside of assault) who decided not to take heroin ever became addicted to it. There are no innocent victims of heroin. Their punishment is heroin addiction, they deserve nothing more and nothing less.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

"There are no innocent victims of heroin (none / 0) (#521)
by circletimessquare on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:13:56 PM EST

this is what drives your argument forward: you selectively forget aspects of your view of heroin depending upon what talking point you are currently on

at one moment, heroin isn't a bad thing

the next moment, its a bad thing

the next moment, it's barely more addictive than water

the next moment, its highly addictive, but its the users fault anyways, so they should suffer alone for the negative effects, a la mill

the next moment, society owes users to support their habit, even though you just said it was a failure of personal repsonsibility

etc., etc.

try to fix a point of view of heroin in your mind, now apply it uniformly across all of the arguments you've made to me

the contradictions in your point of view mutate with every sentence you say. in your post above, you've contradicted a uniform point of view 3 times

so there is no more arguing with you really, because there is no more you: you have no fixed point of view

you can't win an argument with someone whose opinion shifts philosophically with every other sentence

there's no winning an argument with you, because you have no point of view to argue with

you don't have a valid opinion on heroin. because you contradict yourself constantly

you lose: you defeat yourself. i need not argue with you. i merely need to listen to you talk, and within a span of 4-5 sentences, you've contradicted yourself, defeating yourself

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

very simple fixed point (none / 0) (#522)
by