True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[FA_Q2]

I already acknowledged the fact that there are already many ways to get high now. I just don't see how that is justification to legalize them based upon that issue alone. Like it or not, drug abuse is a serious problem. My opinion on it just isn't an opinion. This idea that we might as well give into it is not a good argument. I don't understand why you won't entertain this accessibility issue. You keep brushing it off as conjecture when i don't see how anything you're saying is anything above that.

That being said, I also dont see how you think your points of arguments are more objective than mine. How is that exactly? What makes your argument more credible in this regard?
And the "hard realities of prohibition" is a separate issue.

Not more objective, god knows that I have my own biases BUT there are 2 examples that I gave you of precisely what I was saying. IF prohibition was unsuccessful and legalization worked there, how can your reason that this is suddenly different? If legal pot, shrooms and cocaine works in Holland why is this a bad idea here (where we have a MUCH higher smuggling/associated crime rate as well).

What I am saying is that there is history and examples supporting my position. Is there any good history or examples supporting yours?

 

[Billy000]

I already acknowledged the fact that there are already many ways to get high now. I just don't see how that is justification to legalize them based upon that issue alone. Like it or not, drug abuse is a serious problem. My opinion on it just isn't an opinion. This idea that we might as well give into it is not a good argument. I don't understand why you won't entertain this accessibility issue. You keep brushing it off as conjecture when i don't see how anything you're saying is anything above that.

That being said, I also dont see how you think your points of arguments are more objective than mine. How is that exactly? What makes your argument more credible in this regard?
And the "hard realities of prohibition" is a separate issue.

Not more objective, god knows that I have my own biases BUT there are 2 examples that I gave you of precisely what I was saying. IF prohibition was unsuccessful and legalization worked there, how can your reason that this is suddenly different? If legal pot, shrooms and cocaine works in Holland why is this a bad idea here (where we have a MUCH higher smuggling/associated crime rate as well).

What I am saying is that there is history and examples supporting my position. Is there any good history or examples supporting yours?

The argument I am making is that the addicting hard drugs we have been discussing are not worth legalizing for the sake of personal freedom. Whether or not the war on drugs is working is a separate issue. Therefore, I don't understand why you are bringing up prohibition. Yes, there will always be a black market for these drugs, but that doesnt mean we should just give in to legalizing them. In my perspective, it would only make the drug abuse PROBLEM worse, regulation or not.

I already made it clear earlier I have no problem with shrooms and weed. Cocaine in Holland? I don't know. I don't know if that is "working" or not. All I know is it isn't worth the trouble of having it legal if you ask me. I'm sure there is a reason why only those 3 drugs are legal.

 

[Oddball]

I already acknowledged the fact that there are already many ways to get high now. I just don't see how that is justification to legalize them based upon that issue alone. Like it or not, drug abuse is a serious problem. My opinion on it just isn't an opinion. This idea that we might as well give into it is not a good argument. I don't understand why you won't entertain this accessibility issue. You keep brushing it off as conjecture when i don't see how anything you're saying is anything above that.

That being said, I also dont see how you think your points of arguments are more objective than mine. How is that exactly? What makes your argument more credible in this regard?
And the "hard realities of prohibition" is a separate issue.

Not more objective, god knows that I have my own biases BUT there are 2 examples that I gave you of precisely what I was saying. IF prohibition was unsuccessful and legalization worked there, how can your reason that this is suddenly different? If legal pot, shrooms and cocaine works in Holland why is this a bad idea here (where we have a MUCH higher smuggling/associated crime rate as well).

What I am saying is that there is history and examples supporting my position. Is there any good history or examples supporting yours?

The argument I am making is that the addicting hard drugs we have been discussing are not worth legalizing for the sake of personal freedom. Whether or not the war on drugs is working is a separate issue. Therefore, I don't understand why you are bringing up prohibition. Yes, there will always be a black market for these drugs, but that doesnt mean we should just give in to legalizing them. In my perspective, it would only make the drug abuse PROBLEM worse, regulation or not.

It doesn't get worse than rival street hooligans shooting up otherwise peaceful neighborhoods full of innocent bystanders.

 

[Oddball]

Uh huh. Then by all means refuse to pay your income tax. I'm sure the courts will understand that there is no obligation. Unfortunately, that would mean I would become obligated to pay even more for your room and board.

Might still doesn't make right, butthead....Nor does it prove anything

And "society" doesn't impose taxes upon me, the goon squads of bureaucrats at the IRS and various and sundry other state and local agencies do.....Those agencies are still comprised of individual people.

Yeah. You keep on telling yourself that.

What?...Taxing agencies aren't staffed with people?

Might does make right?

WTF are you babbling about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

You are incorrect on the plow. The purchase was merely one stage in the acquistion of the plow. The plow had to be manufactured, the parts manufactured, the raw materials turned into parts, the ores mined and smelted to create the raw materials, payrolls had to be paid, bank accounts created and used, inspections done, transportation provided, roads built and maintained, railways built and maintained, ships built and manned, trade agreements negotiated,... The list could go on for pages to describe what had to happen before he could purchase the plow. Without the interaction and infrastructure, which is what society is ultimately, the plow would not exist to be purchased. The money used to make the purchase would not exist.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

I gave money for the computer, and gave my time to get money.

End of obligation.

Absent society, where did the computer and the money come from?

Absent a brain, where do you thoughts come from?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We look at the word "obligation" differently. If I meet my obligations that does not mean those obligations do not exist. I simply have met them. I pay my mortgage, but that does not mean my obligation to pay my mortgage goes away.

Saying it is interaction does not mean you are not dependent. Take away your access to that interaction and you will quickly see just how dependent you are. The infrastructure and interaction is society. Your entire way of life is utterly dependent upon your participation in that society. Look around yourself and ask what is it that you produce by yourself which will keep you alive. Do you grow your own food, make your own cloth, build your own shelter - all using raw materials you obtained on your own? Unlikely. Do you even have access to potable water? Most people don't. Take away society and the vast majority of us die in a matter of weeks. If that is not dependence, I have no idea what is.

"Society" didn't build my house.

No. But it did make it possible to build your house. Did you cut down the trees and saw the lumber? Did you mine and smelt the ore and then make your own nails?

Society does not build anything. People do. Society is that infrastructure and interaction which allows you to take advantage of something someone else did on the other side of the world. If you pick up a phone and call someone hundreds of miles away, the conversation is between you and the other person. But without the phone the conversation is not possible. It is the medium which makes that conversation possible. Society is the medium which made building your home possible.

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature. It's us. It's the community, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. It's all of us living in coordination with each other. What happens in a community across the country from me affects me, because I am part of that society. I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

I am sure you think you have a point in there somewhere, but the gobbledygook you spouted totally obscured whatever it is.

I still want someone to explain how freedom harms society, whatever the fuck you personally think society is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But let me answer your question as to who invented English ?

The society of English speaking people invented it.,

They are collectively the entity of people (Angloglots)who are still reinventing it, every day.

In other words, the definition of "society" depends on what you're talking about. If you are talking about language, it refers to one group of people. If you're referring to technology, it refers to another group of people. According to your theory, a person can belong to hundreds of different societies simultaneously. So when you buy a house or watch a television program or board a plane to visit your mother, who do you owe for these benefits of "society?"

What you apparently are having trouble getting is that mankind is a SOCIAL species.

Each new generation stands on the shoulders of the previous generations.



so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsīətē/
Noun
The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.
Synonyms
association - company - community - fellowship - club

Does that man anyone who is asocial, or even antisocial, is not human, or are you just full of shit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature.

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.


That's just your opinion.

I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

Yes. I understand your position. Which is why society also creates laws in order to impose those obligations upon people who think those benefits should be free. You don't have to feel the same way as I do, but that does not remove the obligation.

Read my signature and slap yourself for being stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You interact with society constantly. You're doing it right now. That you are not aware of it only means that metaphorically you have your eyes closed, not that you aren't doing it.

That is exactly what I was waiting for, you think you are society, and that makes you feel justified in imposing yourself on me.

Fuck off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. I understand your position. Which is why society also creates laws in order to impose those obligations upon people who think those benefits should be free. You don't have to feel the same way as I do, but that does not remove the obligation.

Society doesn't impose jack shit.

Nosy busybody dickweeds who can't mind their own fucking business, like you, do.

That you blame this knuckle-dragging thuggery on "society", merely indicates your refusal to take responsibility for being a nosy busybody dickweed who can't mind his own fucking business.

Uh huh. Then by all means refuse to pay your income tax. I'm sure the courts will understand that there is no obligation. Unfortunately, that would mean I would become obligated to pay even more for your room and board.

Now you think that the government is society.

Anyone still wonder why I insisted on a definition before I even tried to discuss this?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

...be outlawed.

True.

Freedom, in and of itself, does not, and cannot bring "harm" to society. The exercise of freedom by one individual, and whether or not said freedom infringes on the constitutional rights of another individual, is the legal litmus test, in my opinion.

 

[legaleagle_45]

True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should... ...be outlawed.

True.

False.