I miss political threads . . .

[Grakthis]

And I'll be the first to admit that I have no numbers to back my claims, no hard proof.

It's just how I was raised and from what I see as my rational thinking.

You have no numbers, no logic and no reason.  You are debating morality and ethics.  Ethics and morality have no place in law.  Your personal philosophy has no place in this discussion.

Before you even consider going into constitutional law, you need to study some business and some sociology.  Then come back and talk to us.
---Andrew

[Katia's Lover]

And I'll be the first to admit that I have no numbers to back my claims, no hard proof.

It's just how I was raised and from what I see as my rational thinking.

You have no numbers, no logic and no reason.  You are debating morality and ethics.  Ethics and morality have no place in law.  Your personal philosophy has no place in this discussion.

Before you even consider going into constitutional law, you need to study some business and some sociology.  Then come back and talk to us.
---Andrew

You have the biggest fucking ego I've ever seen.

EDIT:  I don't seem to remember you bringing any numbers or facts into the issue either.

This is not a matter of law.  Nor constitutional law.  

Ethics and morality have no place in law?!?!?!  Hmm... Georgia's School of Law's corriculum seems to think different... seeing as a second year course is "Ethics in law".

I've always thought that you were a good guy.  We disagree on some issues, that's all.  That last post proves to me you're one of the most arrogant bastards I've ever seen/read/heard.

Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!

[x Jennifer x]

so sad how grakhtis wants to be right about everything...when personally noone gives a shit :razz:  :mrgreen:

[Grakthis]

You have the biggest fucking ego I've ever seen.

Son, you haven't even seen the TIP of my EGO.  My Ego could fill this MB if I were to let it.  If you think this is somehow an insult to me, you are sadly mistaken.  I take pride in my ego.

EDIT:  I don't seem to remember you bringing any numbers or facts into the issue either.

If you will remember correctly, I did try and bring economic LAWS and behaviors into it.  But you said you didn't want to listen to economics.  Or did you forget that part of the discussion?  I'm sure I can respost it if you'd like.

Ethics and morality have no place in law?!?!?!  Hmm... Georgia's School of Law's corriculum seems to think different... seeing as a second year course is "Ethics in law".

Ethics and morality have a place in enforcing and practicing law, because these things are done by individual people who have personal beliefs.  They have no place in MAKING laws.  Seperation of church and state is a key component to the US.  Morality is a subjective philosophy or religion based issue and has no place in the wording or creation of laws.  What I may think is unethical you may not.  Don't write laws to prevent unethical behavior, write laws to prevent behavior that imposes on the personal freedoms of individuals.

Often times morality manages to work its way in to laws, but this is universally a bad practice IN MY OPINION.

I've always thought that you were a good guy.

well.  That was your first mistake.  I'm not a "good" guy.  Don't expect me to do or say nice things.  You'll just be dissapointed.

We disagree on some issues, that's all.


That last post proves to me you're one of the most arrogant bastards I've ever seen/read/heard.

This is not a case of disagreeing.  I am familair with the concept of disagreeing.  Disagreeing is when two people state opossing view points but neither side can ultimatly be shown to be correct.

YOU haven't even stated a rational VIEWpoint yet!  You've just closed your mind to anything other than the stance you started with and defend it by saying "I don't want to hear about your position".

And you say I'M arrogant?  I listen to coherant arguments.  Look at my discussions with Kev ala religion.  Intelligent debates.  Why? Because he presented an INTELLIGENT viewpoint.  He didn't just spout off.  And in the end, he and I agreed to disagree, happily.  I have a TREMENDOUS amount of respect for him regardless of if we agreed in the end or not.

Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!

I think that everyone who disagrees with me and doesn't have a rational well thought out logical reason for it doesn't have a clue.  Because if they DID have a clue then they would either come to the same conclusion as me, or have a valid reason for not coming to the same conclusion as me.

This, my friend, is simple logics.  If I thought another position were better than mine, then i would change positions.
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

so sad how grakhtis wants to be right about everything...when personally noone gives a shit :razz:  :mrgreen:

Apparently someone gives a shit, because people continue to debate with me.  A good debate is healthy.  Relieves tension and forces people to THINK for themselves.
---Andrew

[x Jennifer x]

so sad how grakhtis wants to be right about everything...when personally noone gives a shit :razz:  :mrgreen:

Apparently someone gives a shit, because people continue to debate with me.  A good debate is healthy.  Relieves tension and forces people to THINK for themselves.
---Andrew

True :mrgreen: ....i love debates! bwahahahaha

[Katia's Lover]

I've listened to you debate economics and told you many times over that the economics of the issue of far less importance than the safety of others.  How is that not a viewpoint?

[Grakthis]

Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!

let me make one last thing clear.  For me, this is not a PERSONAL argument.  I don't think you are a "bad" person for disagreeing with me.  Just an ignorant person.  Everyone is ignorant about some things, the smartest people are just the ones who acknowledge their own ignorance and try to do something about it.

I don't dislike you, and even your comments about my ego wont change this because, well, frankly, I DO have a huge ego.  Which I don't see as a bad thing.

So if you find yourself getting MAD or taking this argument personally, step back, take a deep breath, and realize that your views are not YOU.  I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your views and your lack of knowledge on a specific subject.  These are things you can change, and should not be ashamed to change.

And you always have the option of just not debating with me anymore.  Feel free to exercise it at will.
---Andrew

[Grakthis]

I've listened to you debate economics and told you many times over that the economics of the issue of far less importance than the safety of others.  How is that not a viewpoint?

But the safety of others IS part of the economics.

Economics says that money is a way people have a voice in a free market economy.  Where they spend their money shows their opinions.  If a person wants to endanger their own lives (and the money flowing into the drug industry shows this to be true) then why should YOU have the right to tell them they can't?  Are you my dad?  My guardian?
---Andrew

[Katia's Lover]

Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!

let me make one last thing clear.  For me, this is not a PERSONAL argument.  I don't think you are a "bad" person for disagreeing with me.  Just an ignorant person.  Everyone is ignorant about some things, the smartest people are just the ones who acknowledge their own ignorance and try to do something about it.

I don't dislike you, and even your comments about my ego wont change this because, well, frankly, I DO have a huge ego.  Which I don't see as a bad thing.

So if you find yourself getting MAD or taking this argument personally, step back, take a deep breath, and realize that your views are not YOU.  I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your views and your lack of knowledge on a specific subject.  These are things you can change, and should not be ashamed to change.

And you always have the option of just not debating with me anymore.  Feel free to exercise it at will.
---Andrew

Now THAT is a good post.

[Katia's Lover]

I've listened to you debate economics and told you many times over that the economics of the issue of far less importance than the safety of others.  How is that not a viewpoint?

But the safety of others IS part of the economics.

Economics says that money is a way people have a voice in a free market economy.  Where they spend their money shows their opinions.  If a person wants to endanger their own lives (and the money flowing into the drug industry shows this to be true) then why should YOU have the right to tell them they can't?  Are you my dad?  My guardian?
---Andrew

I (representing the american government I assume in your argument) should be able to tell them they can't because not only are they endangering their own lives, but they are also hampering their abilities to make rational and sane decisions when put on certains substances.  I'm of the belief that the government should prevent (or at least try) people from being able to legally do things that hampers their decision making.  You're obviously not.

[Grakthis]

I (representing the american government I assume in your argument) should be able to tell them they can't because not only are they endangering their own lives, but they are also hampering their abilities to make rational and sane decisions when put on certains substances.  I'm of the belief that the government should prevent (or at least try) people from being able to legally do things that hampers their decision making.  You're obviously not.

Now THAT is a central point on which we can agree to disagree as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer.  It's just an opinion.

So you are also against alcohol?  What about paxil?  Ridlin? Are you against ALL mind altering substances?  Or is there a cutoff point?
---Andrew

[Katia's Lover]

Of course there is a cutoff point.  

I would also venture to say that if any drug can be PROVEN to have medicinal uses, that it should be able to be used with a doctor's consent and prescription.  Once again I would ask though that the doctor's that can give consent or prescription to any of these currently illegal drugs would have to be authorized by that state's surgeon general.

There are far varying effects from say alcohol than there is, say heroin.

[Grakthis]

Of course there is a cutoff point.  

I would also venture to say that if any drug can be PROVEN to have medicinal uses, that it should be able to be used with a doctor's consent and prescription.  Once again I would ask though that the doctor's that can give consent or prescription to any of these currently illegal drugs would have to be authorized by that state's surgeon general.

There are far varying effects from say alcohol than there is, say heroin.

Depends on quantity.  If you drink enough alcohol it can have the exact same affects on your behavior as heroine.  You ever talked to an alcoholic?

So the cutoff is medical usage?  So if it can have a medically beneficial affect then it's good?

So who defines beneficial?  Is someone with ADD better off when they are on Ridlin?  Is a depressed person better off when they drink because it makes them happier for a while?  Who draws the line?

While I understand your stance, I think centrally it is flawed.  I am a human being.  I should have control of what I do with my own body.  If i want to commit suicide, then that is MY decision and no one has a right to stop me.
---Andrew

[Katia's Lover]

So who defines beneficial?  Is someone with ADD better off when they are on Ridlin?  Is a depressed person better off when they drink because it makes them happier for a while?  Who draws the line?

All I can is: Not me.