Ohms said Communist!! Where!?!?! Who is the Communist? Is it you Houston!?!
Printable View
Ohms said Communist!! Where!?!?! Who is the Communist? Is it you Houston!?!
Yankees!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
So you're trying to top it with your spelling? :D
I dunno...I sort of think maybe the debate is basically played out. I think everyone made good points but, let's face it, neither side is going to sway the other side, and we're all just sort of rehashing the same things over and over again.
only if we can have a ban on Yankee homers post padding.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
What a very classless post.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
This was fun.
I agree..however it was also sad, depressing, and downright scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yep, my sentiments exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
What scares me is that people get so worked up about these issues that they end up taking things personally and fail to even hear the points other people are making.
I'm on the fence about drug legalization. I agree with a lot of the logic behind it. The point that I was arguing was about personal freedom.
OFG said something about admitting I didn't believe in personal freedoms or responsibility. That is flat out untrue. Individuals have the ultimate choices regarding their lives. They make thier decisions and should face the consequences of those decisions. But as individuals we don't exist in a vacuum. We have some responsibility to the other people on this planet as well.
First of all, I didn't single you out. Secondly, I read your responses and really thought you were joking. I pointed out, repeatedly, my definition of personal freedom. Yes, it lives on a spectrum, and that spectrum goes all the way from total freedom (anarchy) to complete ownership (total slave).Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
I never considered my definition to be anywhere hear anarchy, and thus thought you were joking. OK, lets look at your examples. Nuclear missiles and hand grenades? There SOLE PURPOSE is to endanger others lives and property. Remember, I said personal freedom meant we should be free to do whatever we want, as adults, so long as we don't endanger the lives, safety, or property of others. So, of course nuclear weapons, hand grenades, chemical, biological, and pretty much all military weapons should be banned. Do I really need to state that?
We should go as far towards that as is practically possible. I just don't consider your examples to be serious challenges to that definition, in that the other examples all involved minors, and I have never and will never suggest that they get all the rights of adults.
Dickay wants to harp on the availability, and not the responsibility. Again, we know thousands are going to die on our highways every year, yet we don't consider banning the manufacture and sale of automobiles. Why? Because if used responsibly, they are not a danger.
Guns are going to kill thousands next year. Again, we don't ban this even though we know the mere availability of the guns is going to result in SOME people doing BAD things (irresponible things) resulting in death, despair, and wrecked lives.
Why do we allow these things KNOWING FULL WELL people are going to die, get maimed, and have their lives wrecked? Because of the concept of personal freedom and responsibility. You are free to own a gun, but you are responsible if you use it improperly.
The same should be true for drugs. Some people will use them improperly, and when they do, they should be held accountable. Just like alcohol; some people consume a couple of glasses of wine with their meal at night, never get behind the wheel of a car, and they ENJOY those glasses of wine, without ever endangering anyone else's safety or property. That's freedom, with responsibility. If another person can't stop at two glasses of wine, and can't refrain from getting behind the wheel of a car, then THAT person should be held accountable. I'm not even going to say the same should be true with drugs, because alcohol IS a drug. As is caffeine, nicotine, and about a hundred or so other ones that ARE legal.
The part that is sad and depressing is that there are millions of folks who really believe that they, not you or I, know what's better for us than us. Where that arrogance comes from, I don't know, nor care. They think they can tell us what drug we can enjoy at night with our meal (caffeine and alcohol are ok, but you really can't handle coke or pot, no no no). If you want to have a relationship for the rest of your life with someone you love, that's fine as long as it meets MY criteria (i.e. heterosexual). And I know better than you what kind of sexual acts you and any potential willing partner can perform, so I'll pass laws regarding that as well. (In my state, VA, it is ILLEGAL for a man and woman, even if married, to engage in oral sex, ILLEGAL). Those are the ones that don't believe in personal freedom, and I'm going to call them out on it.
The really scary part about all of this is the continuum you spoke of. Because we are, day by day, (especially after 9/11), moving further and further along that spectrum from freedom to a police state. I've been stationed in other countries and have seen the differences, and I will fight until my last breath to keep it from happening, but its really sad when we not only allow it to happen, we actually condone it.
Folks my father's age (with their wits still about them) roll their eyes when I discuss with them things like how we (America) now openly discuss imprisoning an American citizen on American soil without charges or access to a lawyer or without even being charged with a crime, how we openly discuss spying on our conversations without so much as a warrant, how we openly discuss torture and the merits thereof. The slider is already moving, and the really sad thing is that though each of these sounds like an inch here or an inch there, before you even know you look up and you're so far away from freedom and toward a police state that its now too late to turn back.
Well said OFG.
Wave hands side to side in tempoQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
"Save the orphans ... ah ah ah ah ...
Save the orphans ... ah ah ah ah ..."
We interupt this thread to add nothing to the conversation.
We now return you to your regular thread.
Steroids are wrong when used to enhance athletic performance. However banning steroids is wrong however as some do need then for medical purposes.
I just wanted to throw that in so y'all wouldn't think I can only talk about the Yankees. However the Yankees should not use steroids and I will be glad when Giambi is gone as I've never cared for him anyway and feel he is tainted.
Why are steroids wrong when used to enhance athletic performance? I know that, as they are banned, athletes shouldn't use them, and thus it's "wrong" in that sense...but what makes taking a substance to improve your performance WRONG? Caffeine improves performance in a similar manner as amphetamines, on a smaller scale, and nobody's going to call for preventing athletes from having a cup of coffee before the game.
I just find it hypocritical that we blindly accept some steroids (cortisone) and some drugs that enhance performance, but then act as if other steroids and drugs are the product of the devil.
We do ban the sale of certain automobiles. Legal road worthy vehicles must meet certain requirements.....hence the reason the cars driven at the Indy 500 aren't on our roadways. There are a number of laws on the books to curb automobile accidents and millions spent on enforcement. Not nearly enough IMO...but you act as if these facts aren't true. Just as some drugs are legal, and some are not...some cars are legal, and some are not.Quote:
Dickay wants to harp on the availability, and not the responsibility. Again, we know thousands are going to die on our highways every year, yet we don't consider banning the manufacture and sale of automobiles. Why? Because if used responsibly, they are not a danger.
The US Govt. actually has banned many types of guns. Fully automatic rifles, limitation on clips in hand guns...etc.etc.etc. Legally acquiring a hand gun at least is a much more difficult process now than it was years ago. Again, your examples refuse to acknowledge these. As I mentioned earlier, guns are ingrained in our society and efforts to eliminate them equaled political suicide. This is definetely an issue I am far more moderate on than many conservatives.....I don't like the fact hand guns are so readily available. Proves the point that even if the govt. tries to regulate drugs for 'responsible use' by prescription or adult sales that they will still be obtained illegally. If guns were TOTALLY uncontrolled the problem would be FAR FAR worse than it is today. That is undeniably the truth.Quote:
Guns are going to kill thousands next year. Again, we don't ban this even though we know the mere availability of the guns is going to result in SOME people doing BAD things (irresponible things) resulting in death, despair, and wrecked lives.
Again.....we as a society have made these mistakes over and over and over again. Legalizing alcohol and tobacco have proven that increased availability equals increased addiction, equals increased crime and increased jail population that ohms is worried about.....which effects mine and your personal freedoms you refer to. That is just one of the negative impacts they have on society. Again...who bought you alcohol when you were a minor. Alcohol and tobacco, and even guns however are ingrained in our society and no politician will ever change that. I'm one who doesn't want to see the same mistakes made yet again, and more and more of our personal freedoms taken away...ie crime, additional taxes due to the health related burden on society, increase in workplace injuries and decrease in production, our youth getting even greater availability to these dangerous drugs.
Pain killers are another perfect example. Even with the need of a doctors prescription they are still obtained illegally and sold on the black market...hugely addictive and dangerous to our society.
You nailed it for me. It's wrong because it's banned. If it was legal than what can you do. Even when used for medical purposes there are severe long term side effects that people should be aware of...I use steroid inhalors for asthma and have had steroid shots for medical reasons....I try not to do either often.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Even while illegal, their popularity over the past 20 years has grown immensely.....thus their availability has grown and has trickled down to those who use it irresponsibly, and even worse to our youth. Those are all undisputed facts. How would legalizing them in any way curb that trend?? Houston??Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
Yeah, but that's not what the discussion is about. We know it's against the rules, and that breaking the rules in a game is wrong...but the debate is, SHOULD it be against the rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
As OFG mentioned earlier in the thread, there's been studys showing its effects on children and women, but nothing conclusive regarding adult men.Quote:
Even when used for medical purposes there are severe long term side effects that people should be aware of...
Look, as with ohms, I'm pretty much done with this argument, as we've rehashed it in tons of threads every couple of weeks, and it goes nowhere because we have fundamentally different beliefs about what works.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And all this depends on who you talk to. There are also hundreds of medical professionals on record saying the contrary. None the less.....my main concern is the trickle down to our youth. Alcohol is safe when used in moderation by adults....problem is, its availability has unquestionably caused many problems amongst adults and children over the years.Quote:
As OFG mentioned earlier in the thread, there's been studys showing its effects on children and women, but nothing conclusive regarding adult men.
Actually the discussion started about Bonds one year ago...and explded from there...I just thought I would weigh in....now I'm out as I really don't want to do another steroid discussion thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Figured I would add a serious thought in the middle of my Yankee rants.
Cmon....you guys have never once addressed that question, and have avoided it adnauseum.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
OFG, I'm once again in 95% concurrence with you.
RE Nuclear Missles: That got in there because I was a having a side conversation with a co-worker about Iraq and Afghanistan and the ultimate target being Iran. I had nuclear missiles on the brain. The stop sign example was probably better. As for the age. Of course children and adults should be treated differently. I was just pointing out the fact that we DO allow for the restriction of personal freedoms.
That said, a nuclear missile in my back yard is safe so long as it's properly operated. Just as substances can be safe as long as they are used responsibly.
As i stated in another post, there are plenty of individuals who pose no threat to anyone regardless of the substances that they choose to ingest. However, there are obviously those individuals that cannot safely use these substances. The problem is people see things in two ways
1) drugs are legal and we punish offenders AFTER some horrific act has been committed.
2) drugs are illegal and we try to prevent the horrific acts from happening.
Both have their plusses and minuses (quite simplified).
Scenario 1) People should have freedom to do to their bodies what they want-plus. We are waiting until AFTER the act to do get invovled-minus.
Secnario 2) If we can prevent tragedies, that's good-plus. We have to limit people's choices-bad.
As you pointed out there is too much federal legislation. Freedom and choices are severly limited. You're in VA where orel sex is illegal, I've personally broken that law. I lived in Maryland where a rare steak was illegal. I now live in DC where the gun ban was just found unconstitutional.
These need to be state issues. That would allow people the freedom to choose.
If people want to live in a gun-free society, they should be allowed. If people feel the need to protect themselves with guns, they should be allowd. But it's pretty damn hard for both of these to exist in the same place.
There are issues that people are not goign to agree on. So we should be given choices.
No, we haven't. And I'm done with this. Feel free to read through this thread and the countless other threads to see responses to that question. I'm out of this now though.
Right :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yankees!
Dickay, those are all valid points, but each makes the case for putting the interests of society ahead of the interests of the individual. There is a word for this, (HINT: It begins with C) and its been used in this thread already, so I'm sure those reading know exactly what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
It's your right to belive in that philosophy, mine to fight it.
I agree. I even respect Dickay's point of view. But where he and others like him lose me is they don't believe in those choices. If I believed pot was God's gift to man, and tried to pass a law requiring every American smoke pot once a day, he and they would rightfully be outraged. Yet they don't mind one iota passing laws forcing their view of the world on me. That's arrogant, disprespectful, and not in keeping with the framework of American freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Like Ohms and Houston, I'm done with this thread too. I'm old and have seen the way this country is moving (it was moving this way before 9/11, that just sped things up), and I don't like it. But I could post in this thread every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week......, and it will change nothing.
I will, however, continue to respect others point of view, and will not try and impose my world view on them. Too bad that's not a universal belief.
Have a great day.
Quote:
Dickay, those are all valid points, but each makes the case for putting the interests of society ahead of the interests of the individual. There is a word for this, (HINT: It begins with C) and its been used in this thread already, so I'm sure those reading know exactly what it is.
Actually, those ideals are not communist in any way...and are in fact the requirements of our American Government as set forth by our founding fathers. Your views seem more towards a lawless society, and in no way did our forefathers design or intend to design that.Quote:
That's arrogant, disprespectful, and not in keeping with the framework of American freedom.
At a minimum, I hope I got you to at least reframe your gun and auto future arguments....as they didn't suit the purpose you intended because their usage is not entirely legal in any way.
Good day to you to.
Well, I was prepared to leave it alone, and then you throw a pile of bullcrap into this so high waders wouldn't be deep enough, and the only thing I can assume is that was planned to wait until no one would respond.
NO, the points I made were actually dead on. And if this is really too complicated for you to understand, try this. Read my original points and instead of automobiles insert the words "GM's, Chryslers, Toyotas, Hondas, etc. in its place. Still don't get it? Here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
"Dickay wants to harp on the availability, and not the responsibility. Again, we know thousands are going to die on our highways every year, yet we don't consider banning the manufacture and sale of GM's, Chryslers, Toyotas, Hondas, etc. Why? Because if used responsibly, they are not a danger. "
Want to try again? Replace the word guns with "Semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns" and read it again.
Do you really have to resort to distortion to make your points?Quote:
Semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns are going to kill thousands next year. Again, we don't ban this even though we know the mere availability of the Semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns is going to result in SOME people doing BAD things (irresponible things) resulting in death, despair, and wrecked lives.
No, actually, Dickay, putting the interests of society above the interests of the individual, is EXACTLY what was behind communism. You should read all about it when you get the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Now, I've stated before while it's obvious we're never going to agree, I've also stated that I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with you forcing your view on me through the passage of laws, and I really wish you would honestly entertain the notion of just how upset you would be if I managed to pass a law that forced you to consume a drug daily, or fire a weapon daily, or whatever. But, that's the difference between us. I would never try and force my views on you. Never.
And if you think this is absurd, there was a town in the news last year that passed an ordinance REQUIRING that all citizens of that town MUST OWN A GUN. I'm not making that up. So suppose some hippie commune town passed a law REQUIRING that all citizens MUST OWN marijuana plants. It's just as preposterous to have government force something like that on us as it is to prevent us from making our own choices as adults.
So where does that leave us?? Do you really want to just keep this thread going forever or are we going to quit?
When it comes to safety & security the government is required to put the interests of society above the interests of the individual. It is why you have to apply to the health department and meet stringent standards to sell food and the like, it is why you can go to the grocery store and get food which is for the most part safer than anywhere else in the world. It is why you have safe drinking water. Sure you smoking a joint in the basement harms nobody. You growing some food in the garden and giving it to the neighbor is usually harmless. But if distribution of these things were without law its proven time and time again that they are dangerous to our safety and security. Even the changes you've made to your rediculous car argument refuses to acknowledge that we set stringent safety standards and laws to protect society (ie. filliojoks stop sign example for one). Is enough done, well now that is debatable. Those are just a few of the many small little luxury our government provides that apparently you overlook. That is not communism.Quote:
No, actually, Dickay, putting the interests of society above the interests of the individual, is EXACTLY what was behind communism. You should read all about it when you get the chance.
But yes, I suppose we are getting nowhere. Enjoy the last word. :rolleyes:
I'll just point out that nobody is arguing that drugs be legalized and have no laws at all regarding them.
Ok... I'm calm... That and I think OFG is right, just letting this go is probably the wrong way to go about things.
No, absolutely incorrect. It's the Governments responsibility to provide oversight and ensure that safety and security are possible. It is absolutely not their responsibility to ensure safety and security. As citizens, it is our responsibility to ensure our own safety and security, or not to do so, as we see fit.Quote:
When it comes to safety & security the government is required to put the interests of society above the interests of the individual.
If an individual, group, or company intentionally attempts to cause harm, taking care of that is the responsibility of the Government. Governments that actively attempt to prevent such activities have a name: Despotism.
Anyway, this is clearly a political discussion, even if it is rooted in a sports topic, so I'm moving it to Ejections.
I'm so confused....Barry Bonds = Politics.......where am I?
British Columbia, CanadaQuote:
Originally Posted by RickD
Oh thanks....
hehe
Barry Bonds exited this conversation 3 pages ago...
:)
Where'd He go?
Sorry just hoping to keep the conversation relaxed.
You're welcome. Just being friendly to one of our northen neighbors.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD