Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by idealisticguy, Apr 27, 2012.
It might take longer than one generation. Maybe it could take less. Hard to tell, but either way it'd be an uphill battle regardless.
I was being facetious about being cheesed off. However, if you look at who wrote it:
People like myself get our BS-O-Meters going off. This is the same guy who coined the phrase "Killology" and believes violent movies/games/music/etc. have some blame for shit like the Columbine HS Shooting, VA Tech Shooting, and (probably? Don't really know but wouldn't be beneath him...) the Aurora Batman Shooting.... His book Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence says it all.... Which, IIRC, got him laughed at.
However, as you and I know, there is a hell of a lot more to desensitizing soldiers for war than just slapping them in front of a PS3 and saying "Go bananas!"
There isn't any doubt the soldiers and troops need more to heal their minds and bodies after a war. However, mental wounds aren't so visible. More has to be done in order to prevent them from killing themselves or worse: Getting suckered into joining Scientology.
As for the drug wars: I have to admit that the Drug War is a colossal failure. However, the reason these cartels got into power is due to the demand for the product. Now considering the US is the biggest consumer of that shit, it is no wonder that these cartels amassed power.
However, the only government issue was the fact the Gov. made it illegal. The real problem is the fact people still consume this shit (and be the bane of my existence) and won't stop despite the overwhelming facts that say hard drugs like coke and heroin aren't good in high doses.
If we legalized drugs, would the violence stop? Probably. However, it would replace that problem with new ones: Deaths due to ODs, DUIs, etc. Not to mention whatever problems come with drug use being exponentially increased now that there isn't any thing to keep it in check.
I know I'm a horrible person because a part of me thinks that would actually be a benefit.
Then I am just as horrible person because I'd spare them that. Of course, it would make Freddy Kruger sick and the Devil puke with what I do with them...
You know Paro, I just started a long response, and decided yours was so non responsive I didn't know where to begin. First, you continue to castigate me for something I already apologized for, and then ignore my points that i don't know what to say about it other than the problems you keep bringing up I keep showing to be the consequences of bad government policy.
People are not the monsters you think they are. If you put them in war, where it is kill or be killed, they tend to not shoot their rifles.
I thnk that's kind of important, that a large majority of trained men are unwilling to aim and fire weapons at people they've been told are monsters, namely the Germans.
If you weren't aware of this before, I don;t see how you can hold fast your position without taking this into account.
What do you know, a founder of a hospital was an addict, Will wonders never cease.
Drugs are things, that's all, there are no morals attached to them. They are just things.
You Never wore a uniform otherwise you would not make statements such as above and prior. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and spout off your lines. Not everyone or most are happy fulfilling orders however they do as they are sworn to uphold military doctrine/orders.
Adhocrat do you Truly think that any young soldier enjoys killing the enemy trust me they do Not. If engaged by an adversary fire at will if only to save your life and others detached with your unit. With this post above you have lost all and any respect I had for you in the past never pass my way or stand opposed you will be treated as such.
Doctors don't enjoy sticking needles into patients. They have to train for a period of time to get over their natural aversion to hurting people. If they never overcome these feelings, they are prone to over-medicate and to over-identify, which can lead to poor judgement and poor patient care.
Adhocrat, you have fallen into the naturalistic fallacy.
Why do you keep imagining and talking about a gun that doesn't exist?
Let's extend your argument. If only 10 to 15% of people can be trained to kill, what happens to the other 85-90% of people when there is no government? Not all are indoctrinated. Some people are just evil, and in the absence of a government, it is those people who will rise to power. We've seen that throughout the entirety of human history. What happened when the government of Somalia fell? Who took over? Their former dictator was a real piece of work, but even that would be preferable to how it is now. You talk about a world without a government? Somalia is the future of your society, and frankly, I'd rather be dead.
Hi here! I think this is the best thread I've read on W2P since I am registered. I sincerely applaud the OP for his courage and his explanation of his views.
Idealisticguys, stop depressing my friend. For you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=k_H6CGc3yeI&v=t25TVnpQrto
First, let me clear the air: I am not trying to be a dick or ignorant to what you are saying. My issue has been the lack or the small amount of empirical data that says humanity will/will not do what you think it'll do.
The War on Drugs is not just a bad government policy. It has a great deal to do with people wanting the shit despite the evidence it is bad for them. As I said before: If you were to remove one problem (Gov. intervention/policy), you would not remove the underlying problem (consumption) and exacerbate other problems (DUI numbers, OD numbers, deaths due to gang related violence).
Besides: Do you really think Drug Cartels would go away with the removal of drug laws? (Hint: No.)
People are not monsters, but they are not the saints you think they are, either. People are unpredictable.
Granted, I don't think massive numbers of people would go out and kill each other if suddenly there were no laws. To be honest: Most people aren't killers. Most people are good and only want what is best for themselves and others. I'll admit I have a dark view of humanity, but it is mostly due to the abuse I received. So it is hard for me to accept that nobody (as in 100% of the world) doesn't have some kind of ulterior motive and would fuck somebody over/kill somebody to better position themselves.
As for that study: If you read into it, you'd discover that:
1) The study was done in the US. The US has different morals than the rest of the world.
2) The study came out of research in order to bump that 10%-15% to 100%.
3) There is no way to validate the numbers unless you buy the book. I have no intent to buy a book by somebody I despise.
4) One study does not make something fact. Especially if there is confirmation bias. (ie: The study was done in order to make more US soldiers shoot when fired at.)
Now I think I made my view of the author clear. A problem is that I think Grossman was discredited, however I haz no dox to confirm that. So I have to accept the dox provided as is and must not state that as fact.
Didn't you say that the military trains them inhumanly to not do that?
Basically: The dox you provided were from a guy who was trying to put an end to this 10-15% study. One single study that is questionable at best and hardly empirical data at worst. Not to mention was done in a country that is squeamish about war to begin with.
Regardless: If the enemy isn't squeamish about firing weapons or killing (ie: Al-Querida), then they won't hesitate for a second to finish off those 85%-90% who couldn't put their lives above the enemies.
"DRUG ADDICT FOUNDS TEACHING HOSPITAL"
Let's see. One of the major teaching hospitals was founded by a drug addict. Did that fact escape you?
So that demolishes your objection to the drugs.
As for the violence, it's pretty damn telling that so many didn't fire their weapons. You can spin that all you like.
And I ask you how many times you've used violence to get what you want, then ask yourself "Did I not use violence for fear of getting caught, or because I wouldn't like myself if I did?"
Also, you keep ignoring opportunity costs.
Dude, you just bolstered my point. The doctor has to OVERCOME HIS NATURAL AVERSION TO HURTING SOMEONE.
That is exactly my point, We don't want to hurt people. A doctor knows that his needle prick will help the child, therefore the pain of the needle is more than compensated by the help it brings but his natural action is to NOT want to hurt the person. He does it knowing the pain is temporary and will bring help.
The soldier fires his weapon knowing it will kill someone. Hardly analogous situations.
So..........ONE drug addict founds a teaching hospital and all of a sudden we forget about the untold others who mug, rob, kill, old, vulnerable people, who burgle people's possessions, rob shops at gunpoint etc etc to hoc for drug money because they can't hold down a job because.......they are fucking drug addicts!!!
What was the name of that village in vietnam where the US soldiers went in and massacred everyone and were out of their nuts on drugs??.................they really struggled against unarmed civilians didn't they.
Adhocrat, you read one book/study on a subject and hey ho, your an expert
here's more data from Berkeley
One exception to the rule does not justify or forgive it all. Doesn't matter if 15,000 do good high on hard core drugs: It ruins the lives of millions each day. Even ruins the lives of innocent people as well.
So no: That does not demolish my objection to drugs. Pointing to one rare event or several rare events just makes me say "It was an exception to the rule". Pretty sure others might agree.
Also: What hospital was founded by a drug addict? Dox plox.
Oh it is pretty damned telling alright...
...It's telling me that it is a weak source. If you are willing to provide more than one study, I'll apologize and admit you are right.
I have never committed acts of violence. I've never assaulted anybody ever for self benefit/gain much less killed another person. I try to avoid violence if possible. Violence is meant for self defense and the only real time I had to do that was in 6th grade when I beat the everliving shit out of a bully. I hated it and still do. Hence why I swore my life to passivism after that event. Unless my life is in danger, I'll do what I can to not attack.
Military? Type 1 Diabetic since I was a baby. So no go on that.
So that point geared at me is null and void. Others? I can't answer for them.
What opportunity costs? For what?
Drugs? People suddenly get drugs like candy and things would be far worse than it is now.
Violence? There is too many variables for there to be a definitive answer. Don't know where to begin.
Economy? I am sure there are better solutions to what we have. However, a tested system is more likely to be accepted than a system that hasn't been tried. If it hasn't been tried, how can you determine the opportunity cost?
I hope you are not getting mad or frustrated because I am really trying to understand your POV and trying to stay civil.
If you had looked at the article, you'd know it was Johns Hopkins.
If drugs were unrelievedly bad, as you are suggesting, then this guy wouldn't have been able to do what he did with his life.
Wasn't sure due to how you presented it.
Let me see if I got this right: If one person out of a million people was to point a gun to their head and shoot themselves, yet they survive and become a super genius, then it is perfectly ok for everybody to shoot themselves in the head?
That is basically the logic with drugs and this point you are making. There is always going to be exceptions to the rules but no matter how much good this guy did, there are millions that are far worse off and may never reach that potential.
Again: One person out of millions that lives are ruined due to drugs. Also: That guy died in 1922... Drugs today are way more potent and concentrated than they were back then.
Oh lord! Srsly!!!!!!
This is the addled mind of a drug user trying to reason the unreasonable!
You sound like a government drug warrior. You've bought into their memes
Also, there are millions, maybe scores or hundreds of millions of people who will do drugs today. Seems that's sort of hard to say "Well, you shouldn't be doing it, It's bad for you."
Millions of people disagree with you.
In fact, if you have a beer, even you disagree with you
Instead of acknowledging that hard core drugs aren't good for you and that the odds are really not that great you'll get lucky and do something beneficial in society: You say I bought into gov. propoganda...
....nevermind the fact the facts speak for themselves.
If people want to throw their lives away by the millions, I say fuck 'em. Not my life to utterly ruin and end prematurely. Just don't take me out in the process. That is the issue: People high as a kite are likely to create collateral damage. I don't want some scumbag tweeker killing somebody I know.
2.3 Million US citizens held or 1 in 80 in the system of the USA, 18% mentally ill, 65% awaiting trial in jail, record profits by CCA and other private entities. The prison complex has been built now the beds and profits must be found no matter the cost, last etimate 75Billion USD.
I for one find your words hollow read all of the press releases and watch all the TV you want from the comfort of your home.
Attack all of those young offenders without the financial means to fight the system and go to sleep in your happy little home.
Does that make you feel better or more superior to the masses Paroxetine-Samurai?
For one you have never dealt with the system.
Most Importantly You Do Not Hold the Code of A Samuria
Do not disrespect the Honor of the Samurai you do not uphold the Bushido Code!
You are a Dishonor!
Yay for crack, heroin and meth eh!
And I thought adhocrat was dumb!
Ever notice how adhocrat steers the discussion away to another subject when he is losing the argument?
typing your are a little Punk, does not give you a Derail SCIO have fun
Oh yeah, forgot, you follow the bullshitto code or some crap or other
We all know Adhocrat has proven himself to be full of shit, with his tendency to change the goalposts and engage in straw man arguments whenever he's losing, which is often. That said, I'm going to derail, and say something I'm not going to say often: Adhocrat is partially right. The War on Drugs is a colossal failure, which is how he's right, but it's not a failure because the government is involved. The problem is that the government is not involving itself intelligently. In Portugal, the government treats drug abuse as a public health concern, offering, but not mandating, treatment, and not putting addicts into the criminal justice system. This is a nation that is more conservative than the United States, not that that's relevant. The results have been a decrease in the street value of drugs, a 17% drop in the rate of HIV infections among IV drug users, which had largely driven the exceptionally high rate of HIV infections in Portugal, and a decrease in the amount of "problematic users". I'd call that full of win.
Whatever you think about psychiatry or public mental health treatment, it is way better for a 20 something kid with mental problems to go somewhere with others in the same boat than to get mixed into the general population of a county jail. But sadly, due to lots of reasons, public mental health is nearly impossible to find unless you are an imminent danger to yourself or others. It wasn't always like this. Things were better in the 1980s before the managed care revolution.
But back to the OP's proposal that we rape billionaires: I got one question. How many people do we have in the US who have more than a billion dollars? I kind of think there aren't very many.
Four hundred three.
Well 4o3 billion dollars would help feed the US kitty. But it would only serve as a single meal. Hardly a sustainable solution to our economic problems.
OP is a 'tard, but increasing the tax rates on the wealthiest among us is a sustainable path to improving the nation. That and getting us out of unnecessary wars would pretty well do the trick.
How about we blow up* all those MBA professional programs where people learn how to gamble with other people's money and how to make three times more than everybody else without actually knowing how to do anything practical?
Let those MBA and HR people work as accountants or secretaries instead of "deciders." Or let them study something useful, like chemistry, architecture, or foreign languages. Surely that would be far better for our economy than moar generations of white collar crime.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!