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

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Jack Napier, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More people drink alcohol than don't drink, so that's hardly true.
     
  2. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What you can say is: "here are some real world examples...." The fact is you can't. In fact, you offer evidence of MY case here! People murdering each other with guns! Exactly! People have murdered each other since the dawn of mankind. That's hardly "collectivist".. That's selfish and hateful.

    Now power struggles and an established pecking order occur in every society. From small bands or tribes in the forest competing with neighbor tribes over land and resources, to the biggest nation-states we see today who quibble over competing national interests and wage war with one another, this has ALWAYS been the case. Once again, name some occasions where this peaceful, cooperative and fraternal society based on "love thy neighbor" has EVER occurred? It hasn't. That's why corruption and hedonistic hypocrisy occurs in the leadership of every country. UK, USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, you name it. If we naturally wanted to work towards the greater good, why has slavery existed all throughout history, continuing to this day? If they naturally wanted, you wouldn't need to force them.

    This is a baseless assertion. You're merely claiming drugs would have prevented this. How? You could just as easily say that Iceland could have never sorted out their problems unless they clucked like a chicken while juggling 15 chainsaws. Please explain what would have precluded their government from taking these decisions if they had legal drugs. Armed crackheads would have stormed the Parliament and threatened the politicians into not filing prosecutions of bankers?

    Not just my country. Every country. Name a country where they banned drugs and achieved fraternal utopia. Once again you provide an example that backs up my case rather than yours. Police are corrupt. EXACTLY! The same the world over. Because power corrupts people. If we were naturally collectivist, this wouldn't be the case.

    Great.. Name them. I want to hear about these success stories.

    And be honest, please. I NEVER cited America as an example. I cited many examples from around the world and through history, none of which were America.

    And I never advocated that I wanted it to be worse, so don't misquote me. What I said was, legal drugs won't really make things worse or better for a society. The fact is, you can't stop drug use with legal policy. You can only waste money and lives, like we are doing today. This "war on drugs" (a literal armed war) is making things worse. It's the same reason that while I am very much pro-life, I don't support abortion bans because I know you cannot help the situation using the law.

    You know I love you too, Jack, but with all due respect, you never covered this, rather you ignored my question, which is why I have to keep repeating it.

    Now you acknowledged cheap access to booze as part of the problem. And then you present a plan to acheive harmonious utopia by banning drugs. I am merely asking you about a detail of your plan, to clarify things and understand your approach more, hopefully to see more eye to eye. So I want to know your alcohol policy as per your plan. I'm not sure why you won't just answer this simple, basic, straight-forward question. Do you want booze banned? It's a simple yes/no question. Hell, just put a "y" or an "n". That will do. You could just answer it in far less keystrokes than you expend in making excuses for why you must avoid it.
     
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Only if you don't believe in the moral goodness of bearing true witness to the excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, or have established a tradition of respect for their Wisdom, in the name of morals and our unique form of moral absolutism and legal ethics in modern times.
     
  4. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which you admit you ascertained from your studies decades ago! Since then, we have determined genetic links between our cellular makeup and behavior, and realized that behavior is a critical part of of natural selection. Before the genetic studies, we were able to determine this via observation trials. For example, fight or flight is a natural response that is universal.

    Nevertheless, that is a scientific fallacy. We haven't discovered something yet therefore that thing does not exist. We don't know all there is to know yet. You wouldn't say we haven't discovered life on other planets yet, therefore there's no life on other planets. Or in other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Of course, in this case, the evidence is hardly absent. I've pointed it out. You've not refuted it. How do you explain constant war (like the war on drugs).. If banning drugs gets rid of our belligerent behavior, why are we killing people with bullets and missiles for it? How do you explain corruption, police brutality, greed, self-segregation in communities etc.

    Ironically, banning drugs is yet another means for self-enrichment, control and subjugation. They go around seizing everybody's cash, cars and homes. In fact, it's like the only crime which for some reason they think they get to rob you.

    No it didn't. These common archetypes I identified occur in all societies irrespective of their situation. Like I said, name a society where Jack's model had occurred.

    Jack's the one who based his argument on human nature. Not me. How come you didn't correct Jack instead? Here's what he said:

    "Man is, by nature, a collectivist. Not an hedonistic individualist. The collectivist is the natural postion and order of man. The hedonistic individualist is the opposite, this is a learned behaviour, NOT a the default and nature position.

    We can v easily see this to be true, since had our ancestors not been collectivists and all selfishly gone off and did "their own thing", and with a "who cares" attittude, I would wager that our species would have died out. It most surely would not have made the advances that it can cite."

    I merely challenged Jack's claim because he's backwards on it. Forced diviersity, like affirmitive action, is what goes against the natural order, which is to be divisive.

    No you've not. The government gives free money to banks while the people can have payday loans at 3000% APR. You've got affirmitive action. You've got Muslims free to preach hate against repatriated fallen British war heroes while those who speak out against that hate get nicked. You've got booze flowing out every corner which clearly facilitates obnoxiousness, belligerence, violence and crime. You wage wars that have nothing to do with national defense like every decade. Public benefits get slashed while corporate welfare grows. How come they don't cut back on free money to profitable corporations, but they'll gut the NHS to the point that patients die from neglect?

    Equality is not the natural order. It can't be, because it never occurs! The classes of people who get subjugated can differ though.

    And yet, you jumped in and interjected with my discussion with Jack about it, obviously intent on discussing it, right here on this very thread! You then say, "but..." and will continue to insist I'm wrong, therefore consciously deciding to continue discussing it after you said it's innapropriate to do so. It takes two to tango. Nobody has a gun to your head. Your next response to me, like all others, will be your own choice.

    BTW I was responding to Jack's argument about drugs, which was his perception of the natural order of man. HE brought up the inveterate human nature as his argument, in his own thread. I have every right to respond to the argument he himself presented on the topic. Just like you have every right to decide for yourself if you want to offer your own two cents on it. There's no point in complaining about an argument you willingly jumped into and continue to participate in.

    I never said we all behave in the same way. I said there are inveterate tendencies in human nature that largely manifest, and these shape the natural order society always takes. I'm saying societies are always the same in some regards. Of course there will be variations on the individual level. Just like the lions. You will get lions who are big, strong, dominant bullies. You will also get lions that are timid pushovers. This helps determine how high they can climb the ladder in their own pride's hierarchy. Since the alpha gets universal mating rights, their strength and aggressive personality will be advantageous traits for survival of those genes, and will be favored by natural selection.

    Different how? Are these the ones who achieved a cooperative collective society? The same Monguls that operated an oppressive caste system, whose leaders sent their people to fight and die while they reap the gold and booty, who brought us such greats as Genghis Kahn, who continuously tried to invade China for some reason to the point they had to build a giant wall etc., and to this day choose to be diplomatically isolated?

    And why were Muslims invading them? I thought collectivist societies operated via harmony and peace? Interesting that you mention invasion when trying to cite examples of human's natural collectivist nature.

    The heart pumps blood. Are you discussing in a metaphorical or scientific context? The fact is, people do deliberate harm to others on a daily basis and have done so throughout our history. In fact, we are a rather unique species in that we destroy our own so much. Other species will typically chase others away from their territory, not go invading others to kill them all. There are exceptions, like those Japanese hornets that murder entire honeybee hives to steal their honey.

    We do have ability to change, but first we must acknowledge the obvious facts about our own history and society structure. In a world filled with genocide, hate, war, slavery etc. it is stupid to think we are naturally cooperative and collectivist.

    Stereotypes are baseless. I gave exhaustive examples and explanations. And I never said all humans are automatons. I said we largely, not universally, carry certain behavioral traits. Like hedonism for example, which was Jack's talking points. Who among us doesn't want to have fun and enjoy themselves?

    How come you didn't correct Jack when he first said we have a particular nature? Yes drugs can change people... I have seen otherwise nice people turn to vile monsters after some booze. And as far as no intrinsic nature, that is purely false.

    We have intrinsic nature to enjoy ourselves, have sexual gratification, basically everyone likes music, fight or flight response, protecting our own offspring, laughing, crying, and polarizing our point of view and dividing among ourselves. These are nearly universal. Just like monkeys always eat bananas.

    It's both our genes and our learned behavior. There is a debate about nature vs. nurture, but this is yet another pointlessly polarized debate. I think it's both. Our society promotes materialism and division and hate.

    Which society do you think matches Jack's description about human nature the closest?

    Not by much. Corporations get a higher spot in the pecking order than the working class, pretty much everywhere in the world. Yes extent, can differ, but it's always hierarchical.

    I agree it's important to try to change things. I don't like our divisive and xenophibic nature. But it's not banning drugs that will effect that change. Propaganda, corrupt leadership, and glorification of greed and violence produce this result. Drugs are just the scapegoat.

    Yes but not in the regards we're discussing. I welcome your best example to the contrary.

    I agree. We can, and should achieve change. But we have yet to do so. Doing this requires addressing our shortcomings, not denying them and pretending we don't have them in the first place. Banning drugs has been proven to accomplish nothing towards this end. It just makes us more divided.

    Jung was convinced by talking points. Good for him. Everybody has those. Even Kim Jong Un and Hitler said they were righteous and benevolent and acting in the interests of their people. These very same native Americans fought barbaric wars between tribes and slaughtered each others women and children.
     
  5. GodTom

    GodTom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Contrary to popular belief Marijuana is not looked down upon in North Korea.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/marijuana-in-north-korea_n_4067341.html
     
  6. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can believe as you wish.

    It makes no odds. I'm afraid successive Federal Gov's did not give a toss for the constitution.

    They have totally degraded it, and they are not done yet.

    - - - Updated - - -

    But we're not speaking about Marijuana.

    Since this is like the 15th time we have been through this, are you trolling?

    Or are your reading skills impaired perhaps?
     
  7. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you sure?

    Do you know this for a fact or is it merely a perception that you have?
     
  8. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Opinions are what we are here to share.

    That is the sole object of a forum.

    That you compare Picasso with 50 cent is a good laugh though.

    There were just so many people that having been influenced by Picasso on MTV, went around shooting people.
     
  9. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to mention the numbers of people ratting like a set of beads, with all the pills from big pharma.
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    If only, we could find nice politicians of morals in modern times.
     
  11. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is a generalization and it's not true. The revolution occurred like a decade earlier, and the Constitutional Convention consisted of political delegates, not the warriors of the Revolution. Although, some of them indeed served. Many did not. For example, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never fought.

    Many were staunch nationalists, in particular the Federalists.

    Of course, many wanted to rebel against the British, as they wanted their own independent country. This doesn't mean they felt it was a universal right, nor did they want that for their new country, as that would be anarchy and threaten the new country. They would not have wanted to go the way of the British.

    There wasn't a largely held belief about a universal right to revolt. In fact, the whole idea was that regime change would be effected via the voting polls, not armed rebellion.

    The proof for this is the Constitution itself. If they wanted the right to revolt, they would have enshrined it. The fact is, they did the opposite, and merely granted the right to peacefully protest and voice grievances, and stop there. Instead, they enshrined the right of the Federal government to quash rebellion, even allowing for the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the use of military forces for martial law. This would be tested during the American Civil War.

    Also, look at the Alien and Sedition acts, which came out about a decade later. Some states threatened to rebel, and those plans were quashed by the Federal government, who largely viewed revolt as a no-no. Dozens of alleged traitors and rebels were hanged.
     
  12. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Okay. It would be too late to implement an outright ban. Moreover, I believe one can have a bottle of beer or some red wine with food and there are no problems with this. This is okay and there are no problems. However, I would make public drunkenness an offence. It already is. Sort of. It's just that the laws on it are not clear and sharp. So I would make them clear and sharp. I would reduce the number of outlets that sold drink by at least 50%. I would completely ban the sale of drinks that are clearly designed in such a way as to hook the very young. I would launch into a robust campaign of propaganda to hammer home a message that drunkenness was to be shunned and was very unattractive.
     
  13. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep... People don't go through life and cope with all life issues sober. At least not that many people. Like when people lose their job or go through a divorce or something, where will you find them that evening? At the bar, washing away their sorrow with a flood of booze.

    That's what bothers me about this drug policy. It's SO hypocritical. If public safety and damage to society were really the motive, then they would ban booze.

    And the pharmaceuticals.. Some of those will kill you. And frivolous over-prescribing, for purposes of profiteering, runs rampant.

    There's no war on drugs. There's a war on some drugs. It bothers me. Like the pseudo-vegetarians that act all self righteous yet still eat fish.
     
  14. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Very dangerous.


    Possibly more dangerous, and more malicious.

    I would also be nipping this in the bud.
     
  15. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you know that unlike in the UK, in the USA they actually advertise pharmaceuitcals on TV? They try to convince you that you have such and such condition and you need to talk to your doctor about such and such medicine. "Do you laugh too much?" "Can you only write with one of your two hands?" "Do you get anxious when you're a hostage being held at gunpoint?" "Talk to your doctor about Placebotrol today!"

    If you don't realize you have a problem until you are told you have the problem, then you haven't got a problem.
     
  16. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yes I am aware.

    Very aware.

    This is why I say that in a game of checks and balances that nefarious industry is actually even more damaging, dangerous and downright evil than the class a illicit drug trade.

    There is no easy way to say this, but I'm afraid you are not free at all. You have been reduced to being as free as a cow in a field who thinks that it is free, but you are being farmed.

    You are also being poisoned. Your food industry is poisoning you. Among other things. Then you get ill, or new illnesses come up. Guess whose waiting with lots of miracle cures and snake oil to "cure" the illness. Big pharma. They tend not to cure you though, indeed their "side effects" are often worse than the ailment. Never mind. You can always try another of their products. And another and another.

    It gets worse.

    They have used psychiatry to literally create faux conditions in your children. Guess who has a nice pill for them?

    What you and Serf do not get is it is entire DUE TO your illusion of "individualism" that this happened.

    Had you been collectivist with a strong sense of national and civic duty, it would simply never have been tolerated.
     
  17. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. Although I was directing my response to trout. Granted, I'll give him credit for being consistent. He's including alcohol among things that he believes need to be restricted.

    I still think it's a terrible idea, but he is consistent.
     
  18. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And until you find a society that isn't a police state that successfully pursues a ban, I will point out how futile and expensive said bans are.

    Again, like it or not, most of the First World nations that are easiest on drugs fare the best when it comes to drug related crime.

    There is no drug crime epidemic or addiction epidemic in Portugal, for example.

    The same goes for Norway.

    On the other hand, America has some of the more severe laws against drugs, and we've got tons of drug crime and addiction.

    Until you can change that correlation, I'm not going to trust your approach, because so far, there is no evidence that it actually works.
     
  19. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand the concept that government must take certain actions to protect the public.

    There is talk of forcing people to get vaccinations, particularly among schoolchildren. That's a nanny state policy that I can sympathize more with, because it's backed up by the concept of herd immunity.

    So far, I haven't seen any sound empirical evidence that drug bans do anything for society other than create illegal markets and thus drug crime.
     
  20. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0


    When did they start selling crack and heroin there?
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why should any real Capitalists not have Faith in supply and demand, with Commerce, well Regulated among the several States.

    In my opinion and in modern economic times, a lack of an FDA label on any drug on any market, should be considered a form of sloth.
     
  22. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Examples of societies which most closely reflect your description of human nature:

    "Man is, by nature, a collectivist. Not an hedonistic individualist. The collectivist is the natural postion and order of man. The hedonistic individualist is the opposite, this is a learned behaviour, NOT a the default and nature position."

    How come you use color instead of multiple quote boxes?

    Anyway, since you mentioned slavery as consistent with collectivism, I realized it's possible that we're not so much in disagreement as on just different pages. Please can you elaborate on your description of the natural order of man, and in particular give your definition for "collectivist"?
     
  23. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Collectivist. That which acts as a glue to bring people who are similar, together with a shared set of principles, based on love, mutual respect, sense of duty, discipline, logical thinking not emotional. Seeing the society as a body, and every part of that body needing to be in optimum condition in order for it to fulfil it's natural potential.
     
  24. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have heroin like everyone else.

    The Norwegian government has recently been concerned about overdoses with injected heroin, so they're considering legalizing the smoked version.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/norway-heroin-decriminalize-smoking_n_2805784.html

    And while the overdose rate is concerning there, the government thankfully understands that the solution to the problem isn't a ban but rather providing safe clinics and legalizing a safer method to use heroin.

    Most of the time, overdoses only occur with the injected method. Smoking it is considerably safer (by comparison).
     
  25. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, crack, coke and heroin have not been legalised in Portugal. Or Norway.
     

Share This Page