Aug 5 2006, 6:36 pm
In response to Lummox JR
|
|
IainPeregrine
 |
One of the reasons I had come online tonight was to remedy a post I had went slightly overboard on, probably the result of my having hardly any sleep the prior night. Perhaps I would have been thinking straight, and limited my post to the first paragraph, had I drank a cup o'Joe. I definitly don't think caffiene should be illegal, though I choose to go without it.
|
Jtgibson wrote:
The most you have to worry about from a life of alcohol is liver and kidney damage. (Not including the threat of DUI.) A drunkard relative of mine was found dead, lying in a pool of her own excrement and alcohol. :P (Ultimately DUI is more than just a threat... my other relatives were killed (and some more given brain-damage by the same accident) by a drunk driver. I think he survived, though. The argument that it's "my body, so I can do what I want to it" has always seemed so flimsy to me. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
Just because you hurt yourself by doing something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Alcohol hurts you, but it's not illegal. Inhaling the contents of many types of products in an aerosol package can mess you up, but it is not illegal as far as I know. At least in the UK, it's illegal for a retailer to sell someone aerosols if they're under 18 and the retailer suspects the person might use it for inhaling. It's not quite the same thing, but there you go. I'm of the mind that people should be allowed to screw themselves up if they want to. Just because I think it's bad and thus avoid it for myself doesn't mean I have the right to force someone else to do the same. Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong (wrong)*. Screwing yourself up can cause problems for other people; take my example elsewhere in this thread- what right did the drunk driver have to kill 2 people and brain-damage 3 little kids? People shouldn't have the right to hurt themselves for the very reason that they'd then go and hurt themselves. I mean, jesus! What?? It's not responsibility, it's just asking for trouble- even when you don't take into account that drug abuse ruins lives for those who have never touched drugs and a host of other similar examples. Besides, if someone is stupid enough to want to do themselves damage both physically and mentally then there must already be something wrong with them in the first place. That contradicts what you say above. You think people should have the right to mess themselves up, but those who do have something wrong with them? Wouldn't those people then not be in any position to decide what is good for them or not? There's a reason why some people are given straight jackets... you just made that evident yourself! Maybe instead of making it illegal we should lace it with something that makes the users to sterile after many uses so that they cannot produce like-minded offspring. Now I like that idea. >:D *wrong. But in a nice way. :P | |
Elation wrote:
I'm of the mind that people should be allowed to screw themselves up if they want to. Just because I think it's bad and thus avoid it for myself doesn't mean I have the right to force someone else to do the same. I'm not talking about being irresponsible while using the stuff. I'm talking about just using the stuff in and of itself. People can still make choices when they are under the influence. I don't get why so many people say that they are unable to make the choice because they are under the influence; maybe it's just a convenient excuse. But I know first-hand that even when I'm messed up to the point where I cannot say a short sentence, I am still able to make reasonable decisions about what I should and should not do, and therefor I stayed out of trouble when I used to do the stuff (before I realised the extent of the damage it causes and stopped using it). If you cannot make reasonable decisions while under the influence, then you shouldn't get yourself into a situation where you are under the influence. Anything else is irresponsible. So outlaw irresponsibility, not freedom. Besides, if someone is stupid enough to want to do themselves damage both physically and mentally then there must already be something wrong with them in the first place. I don't see how it contradicts. As I have said elsewhere, just because I decide something is not worth it to me doesn't mean I have any right to force that decision onto everyone else. As for people deciding what is good for them, I think today's society meddles way too much in other peoples' affairs. "But they don't know what's good for them" is a phrase I hear all too often, and it's usually used in an abusive way. What gives you the right to decide when someone doesn't know what's good for them? Heck, not even psychiatrists should have that right. I have seen people screwed up badly because some psychiatrist meddled in their affairs. The only time someone should be deemed not fit to act as they want is when they make decisions that are just completely insane, such as self-destruction that isn't accompanied by any benefit. Abusing drugs has benefit, even if the benefit is far outweighed by the loss, so people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether it is worth it for them. But I have seen some people that truely cannot make decisions because they end up being self destructive. For example, when I was in elementary school there was another kid there who had his cheek go completely numb one time in the winter. He started chewing at the inside of his cheek and didn't stop because he couldn't feel it, even as stupid as that sounds. The teachers did not realise it until he had chewed through his cheek and had a hole completely through it (don't ask me how they didn't realise it; I wasn't there at the time and didn't see the results until he got back from the hospital). That kind of behavior is insane self-destruction by someone that doesn't know what's good for them, but simply putting someone in a straight jacket because they like the feeling of getting high and want to feel it again, and make the choice themselves to do it, is not nearly the same and should not be outlawed (though it should be greatly frowned upon). If we allowed ourselves to decide what is and is not good for other people and forced those decisions onto them the world would be a much worse place today. There would be no gays (as much as I dislike that lifestyle, it's not my place to outlaw it), people of African descent would still be slaves, women would still be oppressed, alcohol would still be completely illegal, and the list goes on. | |
Loduwijk wrote:
As for people deciding what is good for them, I think today's society meddles way too much in other peoples' affairs. "But they don't know what's good for them" is a phrase I hear all too often, and it's usually used in an abusive way. What gives me the right? Simple observation. People can argue all they want that the nanny-state is a bad idea; these people are out of their minds. I'm gonna use general examples here to show that an incredibly high amount of people don't know what's good for them- there's an incredible growing amount of obesity in the world (except in places where people can't actually afford the food to get fat on), child-abuse/domestic violence is still around. People are getting divorced at rates never known before; people are dying after driving their cars whilst on drugs. I'm not being some kind of elitist "Hey, I know how to live better than everyone else and you should follow my example", I'm being some kind of "Hey, we *do* need telling what to do because we evidently don't know how to handle things ourselves". Isn't it fairly obvious in this time of gluttony, war and greed that people really have no idea what is good for them (and everyone)? And hey, given that the first example this was about had "something wrong with them" then this is increased tenfold. If we allowed ourselves to decide what is and is not good for other people and forced those decisions onto them the world would be a much worse place today. There would be no gays (as much as I dislike that lifestyle, it's not my place to outlaw it) (your opinion sucks) I totally don't get what you mean about forcing decisions on to others being a bad thing. As far as I remember people like Martin Luthor King went to great ends to imprint his moral and ethical views onto others to secure rights for black people. There was a great deal of campaigning and such to get marriage rights for gay people. Do you recall the feminist movements of publicly burning bras (etc) and marching to get equal voting and work rights for women? I'm not denouncing people's ability to make their own choices like they're the uncontrollable, unwashed masses. I'm saying people as a whole; everyone, are the uncontrollable unwashed masses (=P), they totally suck and drugs are totally stupid. If they're stupid, then ban them. What right to I have to stop people inflicting damage on themselves? What right do they have to inflict damage on themselves. | |
Elation wrote:
What gives me the right? Simple observation. People can argue all they want that the nanny-state is a bad idea; these people are out of their minds. Then, from your point of view, I am gladly out of my mind. Does that mean that I don't know what is wrong with me and should be forced into submission of this nanny-state? I'm gonna use general examples here to show that an incredibly high amount of people don't know what's good for them- there's an incredible growing amount of obesity in the world (except in places where people can't actually afford the food to get fat on), child-abuse/domestic violence is still around. People are getting divorced at rates never known before; people are dying after driving their cars whilst on drugs. In all the cases there where people are harming others in their stupidity, then those events should be stopped. But the obese people, while lacking in good judgement, have made up their minds. If someone wants to eat themselves to death, it's not my place to force them to stop, even as stupid as it is. I'm not being some kind of elitist "Hey, I know how to live better than everyone else and you should follow my example", I'm being some kind of "Hey, we *do* need telling what to do because we evidently don't know how to handle things ourselves". Agreed, but just because you need to tell people something isn't worth doing doesn't mean you should force them to not do it. It's their life, not mine. Isn't it fairly obvious in this time of gluttony, war and greed that people really have no idea what is good for them (and everyone)? Yes, very obvious. And hey, given that the first example this was about had "something wrong with them" then this is increased tenfold. Agreed. I totally don't get what you mean about forcing decisions on to others being a bad thing. As far as I remember people like Martin Luthor King went to great ends to imprint his moral and ethical views onto others to secure rights for black people. There was a great deal of campaigning and such to get marriage rights for gay people. Do you recall the feminist movements of publicly burning bras (etc) and marching to get equal voting and work rights for women? Those people were not forcing lifestyles onto other people. Rather, they were fighting for their own rights. There is a huge, colossal difference. I'm not denouncing people's ability to make their own choices like they're the uncontrollable, unwashed masses. I'm saying people as a whole; everyone, are the uncontrollable unwashed masses (=P), they totally suck and drugs are totally stupid. If they're stupid, then ban them. I agree with everything except that last sentence. Plenty of people think homosexuality is stupid. Should they then make it illegal? If you make something illegal because you think it is stupid, then you are forcing your views upon others whether you realise it or not, and you are thus taking away freedom. What right to I have to stop people inflicting damage on themselves? They have every right in the world. People die playing sports; should we outlaw sports? More people die driving automobiles than would die driving bikes or walking; should we make cars illegal? People make the decision to accept the risks, and they then live with the consequences. Banning gluttony is as bad an idea as banning cars. At least with the drugs you have the argument that the person might end up hurting someone else. The only things that should be illegal are those things which can harm others beside the person doing the action. And on those grounds you might have a valid argument against drugs, but not at all on the grounds that they are bad for you. A lot of people abuse salt and it ends up adversely affecting their health. Let's make it illegal to use salt on your food. | |
IainPeregrine wrote:
I'm with you when it comes to nicotine, though, illegalize the stuff. It's one use is to perpetuate an addiction. Agree'd. Good thing smoking is practically illegal* in England now. *almost nearly practically I'll even take you one step further, caffeine. Agree'd again. I O.D.'d on that stuff once and totally regretted it, I ended up crashing for 48 hours. | |
Do you recall the feminist movements of publicly burning bras (etc) Yes, I do. They didn't happen. ;-) Bras were invented by a woman in order to make women more comfortable because corsets were too unpleasant. Men still preferred their women to wear corsets, but women wore bras anyway. Men probably ultimately figured, "Hey, what's the use, these are cute too." =P | |
Loduwijk you are lucky that you have been able to make judgments while intoxicated. But not all people are like you.
You want a example? My mother and step father were at our local Bowling alley, and it was like 3AM and they finally decided to call it a night. My step father sat my mother down at the bar and told her to stay right there and wait for him while he paid the tab. As soon as he left 3 guys came up to my mother and said that my step father drove off all made and said she could find a ride for herself. She was so drunk she had no idea what was going on, nor could she remember that my step father had JUST told her he was going to pay the tab. They started to escort her out of the bar and she got up and walked with them. As they started to leave the bar my step dad saw them and shouted at them and then my mother suddenly started to yell and they pushed her down and ran out of the bar. The point is, my mother couldn't remember anything that had just happened seconds before, nor was she able to make a good judgment and refuse to leave with these men. People are allowed to make their own choices, that is fine, and if people want, they can hurt themselfs if they want. I could care less, but when another persons' actions start effecting and hurting other people around them, it is then time to make a decision for that person because it is obvious they cannot make any good decisions on their own. I have had friends and family members die from alcohol and drug abuse. And I am sick of it. Please, don't get me wrong, I am a social drinker myself, but I have never been drunk in my life and I am responsible enough to be able to know when to stop and to avoid ever being drunk in the first place. But some people don't have that sort of self control and they need help, if they want it or not. And if we have to do that by force, so be it. People wanna hurt themselfs? Fine. But Id rather have them commit sucide or cut themselfs then substance abuse and "accidentally" kill my loved ones. And for the record I am talking about Self Destruction and the Destruction of others indirectly involved with those people. It would be completely unfair to even try and group homosexuls, blacks and women in that group. | |
Shades wrote:
And for the record I am talking about Self Destruction and the Destruction of others indirectly involved with those people. It would be completely unfair to even try and group homosexuls, blacks and women in that group. Whilst I agree with your main post, I want to point out that Lodu was only mentioning gays, blacks and women as an example that having an authority impress it's values into others and force people to obey would mean that there would be none of the civil rights movements and such that would give those groups rights. From what you say above it seems like you think he is implying they hurt people? Or something. I was a little confused by it. | |
Shades wrote:
Please, don't get me wrong Nothing to get wrong; it seems you are saying something similar to what I'm saying for the most part. And for the record I am talking about Self Destruction and the Destruction of others indirectly involved with those people. It would be completely unfair to even try and group homosexuls, blacks and women in that group. In that group, yes, but Elation was not talking about that. As you may have noticed, I said to him several times that he would at least have half an argument if he went with that point of view instead. | |