GIThruster wrote:The first pair of photos is the most shocking to me. The girl on the left is pretty. Just 3 years and she looks like the walking dead. Hard to believe. Where's her chin?
For Simon to defend drug use even in threads like this, and then pretend he is not pro-drugs and not a user. . .seriously, who could possibly believe a story like that? And this is just one of the problems with drugs. Anyone who is familiar with the drug culture knows that users can never be trusted because they lie all the time.
I have a different take. Simon believes with all his heart in the principles of Libertarianism. What badly tests his faith is when people point out how it works out in practice. He has to defend this. To do otherwise is to admit that the cherished principle is wrong.
Much resistance from Libertarians is the result of their utter repugnance to admitting that the SoCons were correct.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Perhaps so, but I think you have cause and effect backward. Simon was doing drugs many years before had developed anything like an adult world view that included politics. he adopted libertarianism specifically because it defends his life choices, despite these are what has kept him from finishing school and gainful employ.
I've seen it happen more times than I can count--people become Libertarian specifically because they're users and want to pretend their life choices are not morally repugnant.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
At the Columbine shooting, I recall something about the killers exchanged fire with an armed school guard, still didn't stop it.
More straws Choff.
The police officer was having lunch in the parking lot when they started up. He then was called on the radio by a school staffer, and drove around to where they were shooting. He then engaged one of the shooters from the parking lot. The shooter eventually ran inside the building, but stayed near the doorway. He then engaged with the officer again from the doorway. The range was about 60 yards. During this time, this shooter was not rampaging the school and shooting undefended. Folks found cover and/or escaped. Of the 2,000 odd folks in the school when this started, the TWO heavily armed (guns and bombs) shooters only managed to injure 34. Of these 34 they only managed to kill 13. I would say the presence of an armed person on scene had a definate impact on the outcome. Upon being confronted, they quickly moved to the library, where they killed 10 of the 13 total death victims, and then killed themselves. Had there not been an armed engagement early on (almost the outset), odds are they would have continued to feel empowered to move more freely about the school and seek out more of the 2,000 potential victims.
Now consider this event had there been more than the one assigned police officer, who was there in an ongoing "Community Service Liaison" position and not as full up Security. Or, just for fun consider the option that the faculty and staff had an option to be trained and armed as Concealed Carry security augment.
I think the outcome would have been even less damaging as it was. I also think that if it was public knowledge that staff & faculty carried weapons, and/or there was an active armed security patrol that even though these two cowards were a little more motivated than average to "show everyone", that they would have even reconsidered trying in the first place. And if they did, probably some folks still would have been shot by them, but more than likely far less than the comparitive few they managed (out of 2,000 targets), and it would have been over much sooner. Either they got dropped, or were motivated sooner to off themselves when they felt they got cornered.
Your argument is again weak and vacuous. the idea here is to prevent if possible, but also minimize if it happens. Letting these cowards cruise around at will inside a target zone is how more folks get shot than should.
That is also why the standard practice of police was changed to an immediate entry in the wake of Columbine. The police (at large) finally figured out something others of us already knew. Quick Decisive action to remove option chains from the opponent is required to seize the initiative. Or, in simpler terms I go back to my younger days, "Violence of Action" is not just a motto, it is a method.
Police response to the shootings was heavily criticized for the amount of time it gave Lépine to carry out the massacre. The first police officers to arrive at the scene established a perimeter around the building and waited before entering the building. During this period, several women were killed.[1][51] Subsequent changes to emergency response protocols led to praise of emergency responders' handling of the Dawson College shooting in 2006 in which one woman was killed by a shooter. In that incident, coordination amongst emergency response agencies and prompt intervention was credited with minimizing the loss of life.[13]
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
GIThruster wrote:Perhaps so, but I think you have cause and effect backward. Simon was doing drugs many years before had developed anything like an adult world view that included politics. he adopted libertarianism specifically because it defends his life choices, despite these are what has kept him from finishing school and gainful employ.
I've seen it happen more times than I can count--people become Libertarian specifically because they're users and want to pretend their life choices are not morally repugnant.
Oh, I have no doubt that their cherished principle was arrived at through rationalization.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
GIThruster wrote:The first pair of photos is the most shocking to me. The girl on the left is pretty. Just 3 years and she looks like the walking dead. Hard to believe. Where's her chin?
For Simon to defend drug use even in threads like this, and then pretend he is not pro-drugs and not a user. . .seriously, who could possibly believe a story like that? And this is just one of the problems with drugs. Anyone who is familiar with the drug culture knows that users can never be trusted because they lie all the time.
I have a different take. Simon believes with all his heart in the principles of Libertarianism. What badly tests his faith is when people point out how it works out in practice. He has to defend this. To do otherwise is to admit that the cherished principle is wrong.
Much resistance from Libertarians is the result of their utter repugnance to admitting that the SoCons were correct.
In practice nothing works. You then have a choice - police state or Liberty. As Ben Franklin noted a long time ago the attraction to a police state is innate. A love of Liberty is unnatural. I am a natural American.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
I might add that they will get neither.
The problem with a police state is that it can't deliver what it promises. In exchange for your liberty you get less than nothing. A typical Devil's bargain. Ever notice a "Drug Free America"? I didn't think so. Ever notice the cost? I didn't think so. Ever notice the FDA? It operates on the same premise as the DEA. Big Nanny (Ninny?) knows best.
OK. Forget a "Drug Free America". How about "Drug Free Prisons"? Even the most intense police state you are ever likely to get can't deliver on its promises.
Your particular problem in this age is that the next generation is more Liberty loving than those that are passing. You espouse a dying cause. Worse you have been sold an empty promise.
And wait for it: the answer for undelivered promises is further effort at more expense. Say. That has a familiar ring.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:In practice nothing works. You then have a choice - police state or Liberty.
What utter bullshit. We don't have a police state. You consider it that because you've been a criminal all your life. Those of us who don't use illegal drugs don't have the screwed up perspective you do. You need to start taking some responsibility for life, Simon. You're an outlaw. A law breaker. You feel you live in a police state not because we have unusual law enforcement, but because you decided as a child to violate the law daily. You're a criminal. You ought to feel persecuted.
Those of us who don't use illegal drugs don't have these problems.
How is it always someone else's fault that you didn't finish school, that you never landed a decent job, that you can't pee in a bottle, that you feel persecuted, that you're a criminal--always someone else's fault. Never your fault for being a druggie.
Get real.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Fredrick Douglas
Of course dopers get special treatment. A knock on the door at 3AM.
First you establish the principle for the disfavored. Then you apply it to every one. Pity you aren't up on your German history.
Liberty like free speech is not for you. It is to protect the edges so they don't come after you. So the machinery never gets established. Too late for that, eh?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:In practice nothing works. You then have a choice - police state or Liberty.
What utter bullshit. We don't have a police state. You consider it that because you've been a criminal all your life. Those of us who don't use illegal drugs don't have the screwed up perspective you do. You need to start taking some responsibility for life, Simon. You're an outlaw. A law breaker. You feel you live in a police state not because we have unusual law enforcement, but because you decided as a child to violate the law daily. You're a criminal. You ought to feel persecuted.
Those of us who don't use illegal drugs don't have these problems.
How is it always someone else's fault that you didn't finish school, that you never landed a decent job, that you can't pee in a bottle, that you feel persecuted, that you're a criminal--always someone else's fault. Never your fault for being a druggie.
Get real.
I'm proud of the fact I never finished school. How many aerospace engineers are in that category? You probably had to go to school because you are incapable of learning anything on your own.
Well some people can't pee in a bottle on command. About 3% of the population. Look it up. Using drugs is not my problem. Stupid laws are my problem.
And I'm beating prohibition. It will fall. My mind is made up.
I get to work from my bedroom. Nice, huh? Funny. All they care about is: can I write. The purity of my urine is of no interest to them. How often do they test you? Do you look forward to it?
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Fredrick Douglas
So they have you whipping it out on their command. You should be justly proud. As I can tell you are. Atta boy!
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Say. I guess I forgot to mention road side body cavity searches for drugs. No police state here. No sireee. We do everything by rule and by law.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. Fredrick Douglas
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Obviously drugs are good. People buy them and people sell them. We even have places to do this. They are called drugstores. Or liquor stores. Or tobacco stores.
Drugs are very good for those who need them. That is a given. The question then is who determines need? You or a government licensed functionary? You or a black marketeer? Well he determines your need according to the long green. Age no barrier. So there is that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:
In practice nothing works. You then have a choice - police state or Liberty.
We have occasional (and increasing in frequency) abuses, we do not yet have a police state. Those forces which are moving us in the direction of a police state have more to do with socialism, and very little to do with illegal drugs.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
But either way, it has nothing to do with your empty argument on drugs where you want to play absolutist, while those you attempt to reach with your weak attempt at Indoctrination do not.
Please once again clearly state your position on what "illegal" drugs should be "legal", and what you think that means, just to be clear for the crowd.
As an aside, I find it continually amusing that you think directly comparing alcohol and tobacco with crystal meth, herion, crack and such is viable. It really does make you look silly. None of these things are good for you, but some of them are viciously bad for you. These days you well worn and oft repeated and recycled tripe is making you look like a complete nutcase. It will be interesting to see how long your "new employer" likes/keeps you once you start in on them with this as well. You know you won't be able to keep yourself from doing it. Like all drug users, you manifest clear lack of self control.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
GIThruster wrote:For Simon to defend drug use even in threads like this, and then pretend he is not pro-drugs and not a user. . .seriously, who could possibly believe a story like that?
I believe it, I'm neither a user nor pro-drugs. I'm for a properly limited government, and I can see the war on drugs is doing no good, only costing us money. I don't think one net abuser will be generated by bringing the war on drugs to a halt, thereby respecting the Constitution. I think the societal costs of dealing with drug abusers will drop.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
"it has nothing to do with your empty argument on drugs where you want to play absolutist, while those you attempt to reach with your weak attempt at Indoctrination do not."
The person thinking prohibition is a good response to the fact a very few people will become addicted to and destroy themselves with drugs, that person is the absolutist.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria