Dear Texas: Please shut up. Sincerely, History

Discussion in 'Politics and World Events' started by ArghMonkey, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. Antone The Dynamic Synthesist

    Message Count:
    2,017
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Greater Cincinnati area
    Home page:
    As a libertarian, legalizing drugs is something I tend to agree with you on. Although I don't think it's a winning platform for the republicans, becasue unfortunately too few conservative people agree with it.

    As for it being against Bibilcal principles... I think that's only a mild stretch.
    The way I understand God's teachings, we were placed on earth as a sort of test. If you remove a person's ability to be bad, you are also removing their ability to be good and invalidating God's purpose for our lives.

    A similar argument can be madae against wealth redistribution, and other radical progressive ideas. God clearly wants individuals to help the poor--but I do not think he wants us to elect a government that will steal our money so it can buy votes from the poor by destroying their lives with policies that reward a poor work ethic.

    It's the law of unintended consequence. The best intentions can often lead to the most destructive results. And that is what communism invariably does.
    PoseidonsNet likes this.
  2. PoseidonsNet Supermarine

    Message Count:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Africa
    Home page:
    hmm,
    ok so we must have backward laws so that people have to think for themselves
    and not just obey the law. If the laws were perfect nobody would think for themselves.

    So then why not make EVEN WORSE laws, then that will force people to think totally for themselves?
    In fact, getting rid of the legal system altogether will help us always think for ourselves.

    I think your argument is quite tempting, but actually it just avoids the issue.
    Right and wrong is always going to have grey areas where people have to think for themselves.
    Having deliberately bad laws as a 'test' is an after-the-fact justification for a backward legal system.

    There are plenty of discrepancies in terms of killing for self defence, stealing when starving, etc...
    Plenty of room for people to have to make jusdgement calls.

    Your argument also assumes that a justice system is benevolent.
    Like it or not, even if where you live, people are kindly sent to rehab for addiction,
    in most other parts of the world, people are executed, or even worse.

    Your argument that most conservatives will not vote for you unless you lie to them that
    'drugs are bad', is shockingly unethical. A survey a few years ago at Fox news voted in favor
    of marijuana legalization and America is leading the way in terms of normalising marijuana trade.

    The Republicans have several candidates. Only one of them need to push for it, to test wether it will work.
    The argument against prohibition is a very well known and appreciated one.

    How is this :
    'Vote Obama for more Gangsterism and prohibition in the drugs trade.'
    ?

    Again
    as Christ said
    "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of his mouth defiles him"

    No substance can change a persons morals because morals are learnt.
    Plenty of people act silly on alcohol because of the culture that surrounds it,
    plenty of people drink wine in church!

    Anyhow, your comments are a sober change for this forum!

Share This Page