Narco Terrorism - The attack on the soul of a nation.

I just remember it from studying my degree decades ago. I also know it from my work in counselling. You believe we are automatons incapable of change. That is I must admit much as our modern right winged life sees things but it ignores psychology. It's quite near the 'might is right place' God help us. Hey here's a good example of believing we are only our genes. Man rapes woman because he gets a hard on. New York police Officer lets it be known man does not die of an erection. We have brains and we have emotions and we have heart. There is no one disposition which fits all human beings.

 

Remember what? Know what? You've not named a single instance. I have exhaustively provided evidence that proves my case.

I said no such thing. We are actually changing, but it is extremely gradual. What I'm saying is, we are not going to override our very own intrinsic nature overnight by banning a few drugs like Jack seemed to think. Jack's policy has been tried and it failed. That disproves the notion.

I'm not saying there is any disposition that fits all humans. I'm saying there is a disposition which fits all societies. Society always evolves as hierarchical and xenophobic. That's a fact. Yes we are smarter. Yes we have emotions. But it doesn't change the fact that we are still primates. We are still animals.

 

So tell your RW representatives to legalize it and stop the carnage.

 

That when people tried to come up with something they could call 'human nature' they found nothing. Whatever appeared to be human nature depended on the situation they found themselves in. There hence was no such thing as human nature. At the same time, discovering that people were adaptable what appeared to be the most sensible thing to do was to try and make society itself most amenable to people acting decently. We lived like that through much of the second half of the 20th C through things like trying to make sure our people had sufficient food, equal rights and so on.

It is a massive subject and really the wrong thread and absolutely the wrong part of the forum to discuss it but you are wrong believing we all act in the same way. The Monguls for instance were very different from early Muslim invaders though frequently described as similar.

The society one comes from, one's experiences and how one has dealt with them largely results in how one lives as an adult. I would add to that the extent to which one has become disconnected from one's genuine self. To some, rather more than we usually let on about that is complete. This comes about through unbearable pain and is technically a psychopath. Other's will have been able to hold on to most of it. From here we do not deliberately harm people because the heart does not harm.

Human's are much more complicated and have much more ability to change than your one dimensional description.

all you did was exhaustively stereotype trying to assert that all humans are the same automatons.

You implied it. Drugs definitely change people. We have no intrinsic nature but yes I came in where you were speaking about us having an particular 'nature'.

well either I misunderstood you or you have changed your mind. I understood you to say it was our genes.

I couldn't agree with that. There is a knowledge in all societies but many are more open than others.

Societies differ in the extent to which they are hierarchical. We are for instance more so, more unequal than we were 30 years ago or even ten years ago. As far as 'fear of strangers' is concerned that is one of the reasons for trying to get different people involved in something together.

Societies change.

All emotions are HFD, is reactions. Humans have the ability to rise well above that. Sure they will still have emotions but then they can, unlike now, use an emotion which is appropriate to the issue. Most people have reactive emotions caused by old hurts they have never dealt with. That may be part of the current human condition but we are capable of a lot more.

When Jung met some American Indians they told him that they thought the white man was mad. Jung asked why. They said 'because they say they think with their heads!' Jung thought for a bit and asked them what they thought with. The Indian put his hand on his heart and said 'this'. Jung said from that moment on he saw Western Civilisation in a new light.

 

You'd have to tell the LW representatives too.

 

Fair point, though my perception is that generally speaking liberals are more open to the concept of legalization than conservatives.

 

So would you say that back in the 19th century, when the addiction rate to opiates in the United States was about .5%, that society had "gone mad"? Apparently, it was healed by brave and honorable politicians who saved this country from hordes of rotten, drug addled zombies. It's amazing that industrialization ever happened in this country given the easy access people had to "class A drugs".

Why is it that what we are supposed to love is *your* image of a nation? And, of course, if we don't love *your* conception what makes for a nation, then there must be something wrong with *us*.

 

Except that no one was really complaining about the harm caused by those drugs when they were legal, easily available and cheap. It was the medical industry that wanted to restrict access and thus increase their profits. Once the black market got rolling for the now-illicit drugs, it was then that we needed to be saved by the evil scourge of non-government approved drugs. Of course, nowadays, more people die from legally approved, physician prescribed drugs than from those evil drugs that the government saved us from by outlawing their use.

 

Not politicians. All Republicrats have a desire to maintain the status quo and never show interest in changing it. In fact, this is one way the "progressives" are just as much fundamental traditionalists as conservatives.

The policy book was sealed decades ago, and has not since been reopened. It just sits there collecting dust, despite proof that it is a failure. In fact, even so much about thinking of changing it is often considered taboo. Like most of the major issues, both factions of the DNCGOP are in harmony with each other. They'll quibble about gay marriage and things like that instead, to pretend like they have differing approaches, even though they both have their tongues up the same corporate butts all the same. Obama has been giving taxpayer money to his mercenaries to fight this "war on drugs" in Central and South America. His forces continue to enforce this policy not just on us, but other sovereign nations! Like the destruction of poppy crops in Afghanistan.

 

I love ya man, but please don't make me cover things that I have covered 15times already.

 

The only way true drug prohibition could work is if all countries outlawed said drugs.

 

They are

 

What do you believe morals are? What is your opinion of the concept of moral forms of absolutism? Why do you believe a tradition of certain customs may not become morals over time?

 

I find that many Americans have less a "individualist" outlook, as I previously thought, but one that can be better called Nihilism.

 

Thus;

"Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."

"One way of interpreting the world is through morality, as one of the fundamental ways in which people make sense of the world, especially in regard to their own thoughts and actions. Nietzsche distinguishes a morality that is strong or healthy, meaning that the person in question is aware that he constructs it himself, from weak morality, where the interpretation is projected on to something external. Regardless of its strength, morality presents us with meaning, whether this is created or 'implanted,' which helps us get through life..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

 

Well, that's how a society functions. I can't take the best case scenario in deciding whether or not a policy is good. I can't look at Mother Theresa and suggest that because she would never shoot people, that it's a good idea to give everyone a 1000 round magazine. I can't look at Matt Kenseth being able to drive well at 150 mph and decide that speed limits are bullspit. I have to look at the average case, or like cases. In the case of drugs, it's reasonable to assume that there will be drugs in a parent's house because the same people, most intelligent and responsible BTW, keep alcohol in their house. If that's the case with vodka, i see no reason to presume that it's not going to be the case with legalized pot or mushrooms.

 

Your version of society is totalitarian. I want no part of that. We are free persons. I am a free person. You have no right to tell me what chemicals I can and cannot use, regardless of what my neighbors might do.

 

'Fraid the law says otherwise so, ya see...

 

Our Founding Fathers already Told us what to do whenever we can't think of any Thing better to do.

 

Founding Fathers.

Like American today really gives a toss about them.

They would be classed as "domestic terrorists" today.

Fact.

Your constitution also means nothing now.

 

Fair enough. Except Mother Theresa could go to a selection of shooting ranges and fire off a selection of rounds of different weapons and Matt Kenseth could get a job a NASCAR driver.
There are no such allowances for stoners or trippers as far as I know.

 

What an absurd notion. The vast majority of people seem to be able to manage their lives, however 'dysfunctional' or unhappy they might be, without resorting to drug abuse.

 

A lot of people laughed at the Impressionists too, and at Picasso, Pollock, free improvisation Jazz etc. You might want to snort in derision at what you don't like but that's your opinion and it means nothing to anyone else.

 

Morals are subjective value judgements about right and wrong. Each person determines their own based on their own principles and world view. There is no universal template, although there are some widely embraced ones, like religious text. But acceptance in one is a choice at an individual level.

It doesn't exist. It's like saying there's a universal favorite color that is everybody's favorite color.

I never said that. People can form their morals based on anything they want. You chose the Constitution. You could also base it on the Bible, or the Big Brother TV show. I choose the Golden Rule for mine.

What you said was the Constitution officially establishes "our" morals. It does not. Yours maybe, but speak for yourself. The Constitution never preaches and never says what's right and wrong. It merely lays down the rules. It allows seizure of private property, which in my opinion is theft, and immoral, in my opinion. The Constitution does NOT explain the why, or the moral justification for any of its terms. It just tells you what the terms are.

Let me give you an example.. I won't attribute this to you, but some people think the founding fathers believed in the right to revolt against an unjust government. They go off independent writings of some. The reality is, they were bitterly divided on the topic, as with most things. Some were anarchists, others were hardcore statist authoritarians. The Constitution was merely the compromise. It allows free speech, assembly and right to heir grievance, but then grants the federal government full authority to quash rebellion.

 

I'd say the fact that they in fact DID revolt against what they perceived to be an unjust government would be sufficient grounds to label this a fact.