January 08, 2013
— Ace Don't let the accent (which isn't a particularly educated accent, by the way) fool you; he's a British tabloid hound, through and through, and hopes that Americans are so impressed by a British accent they won't notice that he's a carnival barker.
Below, Morgan does his Geraldo Act with Alex Jones. Jones makes a few good points, misses some others, and then offers up tangential bits of paranoia about psychiatrists and their Suicide Pills, sounding a bit like Tom Cruise or L. Ron Hubbard. (I always notice that the fanciful mindset tends to be indiscriminate about its phantoms; a conspiracist will believe in seven conspiracies, not one, and someone who believes in ghosts will almost certainly also believe in two or more of the following: UFOs, Atlantis, faeries in the garden, astral projection, pyramid power, Rosecrucianism, psychic abilities, Shadow People, and/or Bigfoot.)
Two points: Piers Morgan thinks of himself as a Thinker, I guess, but he doesn't think much about the long view of history. And yes, Jones is right, that in the long view of history, most governments do wind up becoming tyrannical. One could take the short view, as he prefers, and say "our government isn't totalitarian now," but that's just avoiding the evidence.
It is a sad fact -- sad, but still a fact -- that governments do tend to become tyrannical. Political scientists often wonder what it is about America, specifically, that permits it to function as a democracy under its Constitution, whereas a dozen other nations that have implemented a version of America's charter wound up being tyrannies, military juntas, within five or ten years.
So anyone who is even slightly informed about governments and history realizes that America is pretty special for having resisted this horrible trend for so long; and anyone who thinks about the question looks to find particular reasons why American so resisted. Was it the legacy of English non-governmental culture, such as capitalism, banking, property law, and so on? Was it just simple prosperity, and that a rich country doesn't experience the same tumults, revolutions, and counter-revolutions that poorer countries do?
(One may ask if it's religion, but then, Latin America is very religious and constantly repeats the cycle of constitution-leftist revolution-authoritarian counter-revolution.)
Point is, there is something that makes America different (or different, at least, until recently), and one should therefore be very cautious about changing parts of the American culture. One or more of the cultural traditions of America have kept it from taking the same path as Venezuela, or Germany, or Italy, or Vietnam, or France. We might not know which (or at least we, as a group, may argue about which), but it takes a very thick-headed person to consider this and then decide to start changing America to be more like every other country, every other country, that is, which has experienced totalitarianism, fascism, revolution, and general social catastrophe.
Morgan's -- and most other's -- empty-headedness on this point recalls Chesterton's paradox of the wall:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.
And that's precisely the other point in my mind. Consider Sergent Hack:
Word has it that the White House, Democrats, and gun control advocates are planning to try to “overwhelm” the National Rifle Association when the battle over guns heats up this month. Along these lines, perhaps the most important news of the morning is that Gabrielle Giffords is unveiling a new national effort to push for sensible gun reforms in the wake of the Newtown shooting, with the explicit purpose of counterbalancing the NRA’s influence over Congress.
"That kind of vitriol, hatred, and zealotry is really quite scary. I didn't feel threatened by him, but I'm concerned that someone like him has that level of influence," Morgan said. "There's got to be a level of discourse that can rise above what happened last night. It was undignified, unedifying."
You deliberately staged a Geraldo-with-Nazis-style heated confrontation with someone, took part in it, promoted it for ratings, and now you want to claim that the discussion that ensued was of an "undignified, unedifying" level of discourse?
Both Greg Sergent smuggle a lot of not-quite-hidden assumptions into words like "sensible" and "dignified, edifying." What they do not say, but which is readily apparent, is that a sensible, dignified, edifying conversation can only be had with someone who accepts nearly all of their baseline assumptions and policy preferences ab initio. That's not a discussion -- that's a group hug. But only people who begin with these assumptions, they claim, can take useful role in the "discussion," which means the discussion, from the start, isn't a discussion at all.
But tying this into Chesterton's wall: My problem with Morgan and Sergent is their ignorance. They cannot tell me why the wall exists -- or, here, they cannot tell me the benefits of fairly free gun ownership. Obviously, there must be some, or the nation would not have had fairly-free gun ownership for 240 years, and the NRA would not have a 59% approval rating, and 100 million Americans would not own guns, otherwise.
But can they actually explain the other side of the argument? As they say, a good lawyer, one who really understands the issues of the case, can argue either side of it effectively. He may favor one side over the other, but he knows enough of both to make a strong case for either.
Sergent and Morgan couldn't do that. They have a simple-minded understanding that Guns are Bad and do not have the intellectual curiosity to discover, even though it's actually part of their jobs to do so, in what ways Guns May Be Good, or, at least, the reasons people might think Guns May Be Good.
The case for prohibition is always the same: Those advocating for prohibition always claim there is nothing good in the thing they would prohibit, and that anyone who claims or believes otherwise is somehow corrupted, morally or just mentally, and simply wrong.
But we know that's almost never been the case in any single case of prohibition: Wine and liquor are not without value; obviously millions of people value them. Why?, the prohibitionists should have asked. And they should have further have asked, Is it civil to use the law to push our own limited, provincial view of things on millions of others?
Same with marijuana, frankly. Most of us (including me) don't like pot, don't like most people who use pot (or at least don't like the pot-headed sort of culture that goes with it), and so ourselves find no value in it. But obviously millions of other people do find value in it-- are we really acting in a civil fashion to use political power to essentially make our own preferences the controlling law which binds everyone?
Same with homosexuality, once upon a time, 30 or 40 years ago, when anti-homosexuality laws were occasionally enforced -- it is trivially easy for heterosexuals to find no value in homosexual sex, given that we don't like it (and in fact are repelled at the idea of taking part in it ourselves); thus it's also quite easy to support a regime of official prohibition. After all, we find no value in it. So why not ban it? Of course, gays and lesbians might find more value in it than we are willing to credit it for.
People generally have a built-in bias in favor of the prohibition of things they themselves don't like. From SUVs to Big Gulps, people will gladly -- enthusiastically -- impose prohibitions on any product they themselves don't use or any action they don't themselves partake in.
This is a very bad habit of people, and illiberal (in the old sense of "illiberal"), and people should be keenly aware of this bias that lurks within them, the bias in favor of government action to compel the "victory" of one cultural preference over another.
Morgan, Sergent, and the rest of the liberal blockheads all have this simple-minded and ugly belief that their culture -- urban, liberal, wealthy (or at least mixing in the circles of those who may become wealthy in their later years) -- is not merely a culture, with its own mix of arbitrary class prejudices and class beliefs, but the culture, the plainly superior one, the one that is so demonstrably correct that one should have no trepidation whatsoever about attempting the mobilize the coercive powers of the government to make their culture the legally mandated one.
And at no point in this process do they ever find within themselves the intellectual curiosity, or simple humility, to ask: Why do some people disagree so sharply, and is there any truth in their arguments?
We know their claims front-and-back, and they could only guess at ours (or offer poorly-informed parodies of them). But they're the smart ones, the intellectuals, the thinkers. Right?
Posted by: Ace at
12:08 PM
| Comments (475)
Post contains 1717 words, total size 11 kb.
Posted by: RWC at January 08, 2013 12:11 PM (fWAjv)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 08, 2013 12:11 PM (RuUvx)
Word has it that the White House, Democrats, and gun control advocates are planning to try to “overwhelm” the National Rifle Association when the battle over guns heats up this month.
___
Yeah good luck with that.
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 12:12 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 08, 2013 12:12 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: Cricket at January 08, 2013 12:13 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Lord Commander of the Ampersand Army at January 08, 2013 12:14 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: Cricket at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: EC at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Rary's Mnemonic Barbell-Workout at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (3ZtZW)
He's annoying enough regardless.
He keeps trotting out that stupid statistic of the UK averaging 35 gun murders per year.
We who oppose them MUST deal with that and ask him what's his point.
Then he will get high and mighty, blah blah blah. Point out SWITZERLAND. Refutes his stupid argument entirely.
Then offensively make fun of the UK as four times more violent than the US. Make fun of their police. Make fun of their "armed gangs". Make fun of the fact that they are now more violent than South Africa. make fun of their proposals to ban knives.
All they have done is really disarm themselves. Does anyone remember the fucking riots in Tottenham and other areas recently. Rioters were right outside Londoners flats, and the poor people inside were on social media talking about how scared they were and if the rioters break in all one has to defend yourself and your family is a short fucking kitchen knife.
Awesome.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Zeta Reticulan Ambassador at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (GBXon)
That's one of the disadvantages of hanging out at AoSHQ all day.
Posted by: Vizzini [/i] at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (O7Q1u)
This is what I love about this place. I can't get this anywhere else.
Oh.....and the government is hiding every single one from us.
Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2013 12:15 PM (KXm42)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:16 PM (Lxw+T)
Do a search for Piers Morgan Fake Photos.
Posted by: CUS at January 08, 2013 12:16 PM (84pE9)
...
Posted by: Ace
-----
Ghosts - yup
UFOs - no
Atlantis - possible
faeries in the garden - no
astral projection - no
pyramid power - no
Rosecrucianism - ???
psychic abilities - yes
Shadow People - yes
Bigfoot - no
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 08, 2013 12:17 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2013 12:17 PM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 12:17 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 12:17 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: jeanne at January 08, 2013 12:17 PM (GdalM)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:17 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: fyscyl clyff at January 08, 2013 12:18 PM (cVYiZ)
Posted by: Golan Globus at January 08, 2013 12:18 PM (uk1a1)
Under this rubric, why ban heroin? After all, we may find no value in it, but the Junkie totally does.
It's a interesting form of argument, but this way lies relativism, and I'm not comfortable with that. Is it not perhaps better to discuss the legitimate role of government with regard to natural rights that are given to us by a creato....oh, wait nevermind, can't do that these days.
Carry on, Relativism it is! (Nietzsche or Aristotle, Benedict and Trotsky!)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 08, 2013 12:18 PM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: John Roberts, philosopher-king at January 08, 2013 12:18 PM (Lxw+T)
"There's got to be a level of discourse that can rise above what happened last night. It was undignified, unedifying."
This from Piers Morgan? Holy hell, the lack of self-awareness almost hurts. This should be his disclaimer after every show.
Posted by: Heralder at January 08, 2013 12:18 PM (+xmn4)
Posted by: ace at January 08, 2013 12:19 PM (LCRYB)
>>>All they have done is really disarm themselves.
And put spy cameras everywhere. Make sure when selling the peace you include POLICE STATE as part of the price.
Posted by: Rary's Mnemonic Barbell-Workout at January 08, 2013 12:19 PM (3ZtZW)
In other words, the fallacy is this:
1) The US is flooded with guns, and has a very high gun murder rate
2) In the UK we have banned all guns and only have 35 gun murders a year
3) Thus access to weapons means one has a high gun murder rate.
4) This is disproved by Switzerland, 3rd highest gun ownership per capita in the WORLD, it is a first world country, and many of its private guns are full blown military issue.
5) Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
Guns do not cause murder. Period. What's the next argument Piers??
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 12:19 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 08, 2013 12:20 PM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: Cricket at January 08, 2013 12:20 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: Zeta Reticulan Ambassador at January 08, 2013 12:20 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2013 12:20 PM (KXm42)
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 08, 2013 12:20 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 12:20 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:21 PM (Lxw+T)
Does anyone remember the fucking riots in Tottenham and other areas recently.
--
yes London was aflame-ing. NTTAWTT
Posted by: jeanne at January 08, 2013 04:17 PM (GdalM)
pre - AIDS making the headlines, I remember my gay friends talking about various and sundry ailments they needed treatment for that first world heteros rarely experienced, such as amoebic.
TMI?
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 12:21 PM (jm/9g)
Except, it is killing the people who watch it.
Kill your TV. With extreme prejudice. Follow all local laws in this regard.
And, while I do not condone killing journalists, something does have to be done about them.
William F. Buckley, Jr., last century advocated horse-whipping journalist Drew Pearson, a Stalinist. Dr. Samuel Johnson, in the 18th-c., condoned freedom of the press, as well as freedom of the cudgel. Perhaps a non-lethal drug cocktail that causes extreme discomfort for several hours. Immobilized, slack-jawed, they are forced to watch their own product ad nauseum.
Or, water-boarding.
Yes, thank you, much better now.
Posted by: Thorvald at January 08, 2013 12:21 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (Ud5vq)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Warden at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (HzhBE)
Who knows how many mass shootings and copycat killings have been inspired by irresponsible media coverage? If sensible media controls saved only one child, surely it would be worth the effort.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: butternut at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (nbYoV)
Posted by: Jaws at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:22 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 12:23 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 08, 2013 12:23 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:23 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 12:24 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: ace at January 08, 2013 12:24 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 12:24 PM (oKVrA)
I guess your school doesn't teach about WWII?
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 08, 2013 12:25 PM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:25 PM (Lxw+T)
>>And at no point in this process do they ever find within themselves the
intellectual curiosity, or simple humility, to ask: Why do some people
disagree so sharply, and is there any truth in their arguments?
Because like every other leftist argument, it can't stand on it's own merit and it's not for the noble purposes about which it bloviates.
You can't engage an Alinsky acolyte in reasonable discourse, they're too busy targeting, ridiculing and isolating.
And firearms to these statists are like crucifixes to Dracula.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 08, 2013 12:25 PM (aZ6ew)
More Captain Morgan.
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 04:24 PM (oKVrA)
Even more Lorna Morgan!
Posted by: EC at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (GQ8sn)
Ace,
What a fantastic snippet re Chesterton. I may have to read him. I would also suggest Karl Popper, which absolutely destroys the "know it all" attitude of scientists. Fantastic read.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (tVTLU)
Well said.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Francois Arouet at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (PDRXW)
Posted by: Warden at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (HzhBE)
Oh wait, he's under investigation in the phone hacking scandal
Oh bugger!
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Cricket at January 08, 2013 12:26 PM (DrC22)
"Political scientists often wonder what it is about America, specifically, that permits it to function as a democracy under its Constitution, whereas a dozen other nations that have implemented a version of America's charter wound up being tyrannies, military juntas, within five or ten years."
The same reason that if you put 11 spark plugs in a 12 cylinder its not going to function properly. Close doesn't count, and our constitution isn't a horseshoe or handgrenade.
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 12:27 PM (m2CN7)
Well said.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at January 08, 2013 04:26 PM (ZKzrr)
+1!
Posted by: Cher at January 08, 2013 12:27 PM (+xmn4)
Posted by: Gentleman Rob Parker, challenging the fop to a slap fight at dawn at January 08, 2013 12:27 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: gigg at January 08, 2013 12:27 PM (41VCE)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 08, 2013 12:27 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 12:27 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 12:28 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 08, 2013 12:28 PM (RuUvx)
Under this rubric, why ban heroin?
Because it's horribly addictive. Unlike weed or booze, there's little "recreational" use of heroin.
While pot and alcohol might be psychologically addictive, heroin and meth are physically addictive. The addict essentially loses the ability to exercise free will with respect to the decision to use or not use.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 12:28 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:29 PM (Lxw+T)
You saw it w/cigarettes for sure. "I don't smoke and I don't like the smell of smoke, so of course smoking should be banned in bars."
'Uhhh, what about the right of the bar owner to run his business as he sees fit? Why can't one bar owner have a smoking bar and another a non-smoking one?"
"Whatever. I don't like cigarettes."
Posted by: Warden at January 08, 2013 12:29 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 08, 2013 12:29 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Marmo at January 08, 2013 12:29 PM (QW+AD)
Stop complaining. At least they cut out the nude scene. Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 04:17 PM
Did you see the fiscal cliff post on the link in your nic?
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 12:30 PM (wwsoB)
Reasonable counter point, I suppose. I suppose my only caveat would be that we continue to ban some things because the argument is that on the whole the benefit seen by some people is outweighed by the total drain on society.
So even if we allow Mary Jane to go back on the market, Meth may stay banned not because we see no benefit to it, but because having even a fraction of a percentage of people going on Meth crazed attacks is bad for society no matter what benefit the tweakers get. (Although I suppose that's just a specific case of your "arguments against" clause.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 08, 2013 12:30 PM (ULkyQ)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:30 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 04:24 PM (oKVrA)
Germany:
http://tinyurl.com/a82t45p (reuters)
There is no far right menace, beyond the assorted neo-Nazi groupuscules that are regarded with disgust by the vast majority. The far left party – Die Linke – is split and faltering, displaced in state elections by the jolly Pirates Party.
Get Pierce an eyepatch.
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at January 08, 2013 12:30 PM (0It32)
I continue to believe that mankind has a chance when there were hunting parties organized to "avenge" Steve Irwin's death at the hands of a sting ray.
Purely fucking awesome. Yes, it makes no sense. Yes, why should all stingrays have to pay for one's mistake... But we have balls and are pissed and want some fucking retribution. Awesome.
That and the fascination with bigfoot. How do these guys ALWAYS get a shit ton of reporters at these things?? I keep laughing where they had that picture of bigfoot in a meat locker. As if somehow they couldn't roll him into the press conference!! absolutely hilarious.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 12:30 PM (tVTLU)
Good said.
Posted by: eleven at January 08, 2013 12:30 PM (KXm42)
That's why Andrew went straight to the Comments.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at January 08, 2013 12:31 PM (kqqGm)
Posted by: ace at January 08, 2013 12:31 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: JDP at January 08, 2013 04:15 PM (60GaT)
Excellent JDP. My thoughts exactly. I'm tired of being painted as an 'extremist' because I want the government small, and uphold the simple principles expressed by the DOI and Constitution. This Alice in Wonderland gig they are promoting will not end well.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at January 08, 2013 12:31 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: Obi Wan Kenobi at January 08, 2013 12:31 PM (SSWdi)
Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at January 08, 2013 12:31 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Gerry at January 08, 2013 12:32 PM (Dq97n)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 12:32 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 12:32 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 12:32 PM (VtjlW)
This is a fantastic post with fantastic comments.
Yes, bans are to be despised. On anything. I warned that cigarettes were just the beginning.
That's not to say that I'm not for certain things, but if we all are biased against bans or prohibitions, then the ones that survive should actually serve a fucking purpose that means something and is necessary.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 12:33 PM (tVTLU)
One of the sneaky ways they continue to do this is to re-label conservative ideas in a scarier-sounding package. Conservative in and of itself is not an unpopular moniker. Throw the word "tea party" around, and suddenly the very same ideology becomes this extremist cult. In that vein, tea party is the new neocon. Instead of debating ideas, all you have to do is bat around a somewhat less popular name for a relatively popular (or not so unpopular) group of individuals and Voila! - the "other" becomes this scary, unhinged entity. Posted by: Paul Zummo at January 08, 2013 04:22 PM
Turn it around on them, call them "government drones" or "happy slaves of the government" then watch heads explode. They still think it's "us against THE MAN"
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 12:33 PM (wwsoB)
Well Ace had his dancing shoes on for this post, personally I think Piers morgan playing the part of Franz kafka would be nice.....
long speech....cue giant ant eating Piers Morgan.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 12:33 PM (LRFds)
This follows the typical MSNBC interview formula.
Either get as stupid a conservative as possible or one who can't help but rant and rave like a lunatic. Regardless of how weak the liberal argument is, they will still come appearing smarter and more reasonable.
Posted by: jwest at January 08, 2013 12:33 PM (ZDsRL)
Hit whoring.
Posted by: EC at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: ace at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (LCRYB)
Yup "dancing shoes"....
like I said in the running rebuttal during the first debate between Mitt and choom "Barry I've got a dad"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Daybrother at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (+paCV)
Posted by: Marmo at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (QW+AD)
It's a interesting form of argument, but this way lies relativism, and I'm not comfortable with that. Is it not perhaps better to discuss the legitimate role of government with regard to natural rights that are given to us by a creato....oh, wait nevermind, can't do that these days.
Carry on, Relativism it is! (Nietzsche or Aristotle, Benedict and Trotsky!)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 08, 2013 04:18 PM (ULkyQ)
---------------------------------------------
Local and/or regional societies will establish the morality. It's one of the elements that the founders had to overcome to satisfy the various colonies into signing the Constituion. It's why we have a Bill of Rights. It guaranteed natural rights to all citizens without introducing set moral values.
It's one of the big reasons we have the 10th Amendment. The founders knew that the different states and/or regions were going to have different values and norms. So they said, go for it. The federal government will not interfere unless it usurps the rights layed down in the Constitution.
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (J/7oO)
http://youtu.be/bavou_SEj1E
Posted by: gigg at January 08, 2013 12:34 PM (41VCE)
Posted by: Lone Watie at January 08, 2013 12:35 PM (RuUvx)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 12:36 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: Bigby's Golf-Clapping Hands at January 08, 2013 12:36 PM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Stonecutters at January 08, 2013 12:36 PM (8wlFX)
Great post. Debating with a lefty is like reasoning with a drunken monkey who feels superior because he throws poop at his keepers and they clean it up.
Ask a leftist to explain their antipathy for conservatism and all you get is condescending gibberish and insults, feelings, nothing more than feelings, with maybe a fake statistic from moveon or MediaMatters if you have a post-college graduate on your hands. It's all emotional, all feeling little or no thinking. They are so pampered and sheltered from opposing view points that all they know about them is that they're "bad" and "wrong" and "racist" and "sexist." Also, they don't understand fundamentals because they've never been taught such foreign concepts; that's for retards, southerners, and wingnuts, not for enlightened nuanced highly evolved humans such as Me.
Posted by: AMartel at January 08, 2013 12:36 PM (1Bqk7)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 04:28 PM (SY2Kh)
I'd say legalize, then put all the tax money derived into treatment centers.
We have to get rid of the Drug War and the black market it comes with.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:37 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: RWC at January 08, 2013 12:37 PM (fWAjv)
I've done a 180...I figure we can combine BarryCare with legalization to kill off a LOT of people who are darwin candidates on a long enough timeline.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 12:37 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 08, 2013 12:38 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:38 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 12:38 PM (b+8h9)
Possession would be punishable by moderate torture.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 12:38 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 08, 2013 12:38 PM (xSegX)
Didn't you think Piers Morgan was courageous in that interview?
Who else would be brave enough to sit in the same room with that raving madman? Why, at any moment he could have pulled an automatic assault rifle and killed everyone in the studio.
Posted by: jwest at January 08, 2013 12:39 PM (ZDsRL)
Also those two guys in that video are assholes.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 08, 2013 12:39 PM (p/cQy)
But not just everyday sophism. It is a tyrannical sophism under-girded by their own undying, unadulterated and unwavering faith in their core beliefs.
It's cult-like in its adherence to the point where they don't give any value to contrary opinions or people who are by nature their opponents.
This is what runs our country today; a bunch of mastermind idealists who think the world should run according to their thoughts simply because they see themselves as superior to other. Facts, real events and proven outcomes have no place because they don't comport with their worldview.
They are accommodating to the point at which they beguile. coerce and fool the people they need to succeed. They twist language, practice ad nauseum mendacity and use circumstance as springboard to further corrupt a society. They use media and organizations to memorialize and hide their agenda to further placate and lull people who are indifferent.
Look at the gun, budget, health-care, et al contemporary issues today. It's frankly very easy to see how this fits together and how someone like Morgan succeeds within it.
Posted by: marcus at January 08, 2013 12:39 PM (GGCsk)
Posted by: MadameMayhem at January 08, 2013 12:39 PM (iRgZG)
Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at January 08, 2013 12:39 PM (Lxw+T)
Sergent, Morgan, David Gregory et al do not have the gift of introspection, and that is being polite.
Posted by: Decaf at January 08, 2013 12:39 PM (TJQ3a)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 12:40 PM (l86i3)
Taxing anything creates a black market. The higher the tax, the bigger the underworld.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 08, 2013 04:38 PM (evdj2)
It's like saying our illicit cigarette running industry in the US is just as bad as the drug kingpings ruining Latin America and our inner-cities.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:40 PM (xAtAj)
----
......THAT'S the part that keeps me up at night.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 08, 2013 12:40 PM (nELVU)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 12:40 PM (GFM2b)
UFOs - yes
Atlantis - maybe
faeries in the garden - no
astral projection - maybe
pyramid power - maybe
Rosecrucianism - yes
psychic abilities - yes
Shadow People - yes
Bigfoot - maybe
conspiracy theories-maybe
As a whole, these "concepts" are interesting, and the world is a more interesting place because of them. Even if they're not true, they're still interesting to contemplate and discuss.
Imagine how horrible our world would be if there were no mysteries and everything was at it seemed- a world filled with mediocre people being pushed around by a government filled with at best incompetent, at worst, evil individuals.
/that being said, I look forward to your Shadow Person story Ace!
Posted by: shibumi at January 08, 2013 12:40 PM (z63Tr)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 04:40 PM (l86i3)
Users would be funding their own treatment. That's why tax money from sales would go to such a thing...
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:40 PM (xAtAj)
In the Immortal words of Spock "V'ger is a child, I suggest you treat it as one"
Posted by: Berserker at January 08, 2013 12:41 PM (FMbng)
I guess it's time to publish all the personal information of the people at Gawker, huh?
Posted by: Warden at January 08, 2013 12:41 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: GardenGnome at January 08, 2013 12:41 PM (74T7W)
They're nowhere near being on the same plane as drugs like heroin and meth, either in their potency or addiction potential.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 12:41 PM (SY2Kh)
Ace are you against banning porn on network TV? Are you against laws against sex in public? Are you against laws for humane slaughter of stock animals? Are you against prostitution laws?
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 12:41 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Warden at January 08, 2013 04:41 PM (HzhBE)
Correct answer: What is a Gawker?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:41 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 12:43 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 08, 2013 12:43 PM (evdj2)
And thus ace sums up in six words the entire difference between conservatism and leftist philosophies.
Mothers are Socialists. Fathers are Communists.
Not sure if the gender switch is happening yet.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at January 08, 2013 12:43 PM (kqqGm)
Posted by: James Tiberius Kirk at January 08, 2013 12:43 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Yip at January 08, 2013 12:43 PM (/jHWN)
I suppose my only caveat would be that we continue to ban some things because the argument is that on the whole the benefit seen by some people is outweighed by the total drain on society.
If we think along these lines then we would have to ban divorce which has benefited some people, the affected spouses, and adversly affected their children and then the society at large.
Posted by: Decaf at January 08, 2013 12:43 PM (TJQ3a)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 12:44 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 12:44 PM (r2PLg)
" Just when you'd think it couldn't get any better, you can push a button and the whole car shimmies. It's like a little shiver of excitement, the kind of feeling you would get if someone suddenly gave you permission to set fire to Piers Morgan." - Jeremy Clarkson reviewing the BMW 1M Coupe on Top Gear
BTW, Piers Morgan once mocked George W Bush for injuring himself on a razor scooter, then shortly afterwards broke a rib falling off a razor scooter.
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 12:44 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: comatus at January 08, 2013 12:44 PM (qaVK+)
nothing more than feelings, with maybe a fake statistic from moveon or MediaMatters if you have a post-college graduate on your hands.
___
Went to visit my cousin over the holidays, thinking his Ph.D. girlfriend was at work. No, she was there. (had done a good job of avoiding her due to her extreme political correctness but this time I was caught).
She hails from North Jersey, we were talking about Hurricane Sandy, when out of the blue she proclaimed with absolute certainty that Manhattan would be under water soon, and "that would show all those people who drive gas guzzling cars and keep their lights on at will."
I had to turn my head from her and bite my tongue because my tongue so wanted to ask her why she wasn't concerned about gas guzzling vehicles when my cousin would drive the Philly - Boston trek to bang the shit out of her every weekend when she was completing her dissertation up there.
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 12:44 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 12:44 PM (e0xKF)
So you believe in the incorporeal ones, huh, and reject the corporeal ones (Bigfoot, etc.)?
I guess if I had to choose I'd go with the incorporeal ones too. There is less disproving them, since they're intangible.
I'll tell my shadow people story in a post. I don't know if it's funny. I thought itw was funny.
Posted by: ace at January 08, 2013 04:19 PM (LCRYB)
I dunno, I just find the stories about ghostly phenomenon and psychic abilities to be more believable. Granted, I'm very very gullible.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 08, 2013 12:45 PM (UypUQ)
Just as bad? I don't see the connection, other than the fact that we do have a large cigarette smuggling industry going on. The black market for taxed drugs would still be run by drug kingpins.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 08, 2013 04:43 PM (evdj2)
Kingpins with just as much power as the cigarette runners. It would be tiny compared to the current black market. When was the last time someone was shot over turf in the illicit cigs game?
Using this logic you're saying banning cigarettes would not create a large, violent black market like our alcohol/drug experiments hav.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:45 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:45 PM (Lxw+T)
*Every* one of the bastards.
Posted by: GMan at January 08, 2013 12:46 PM (UkbKS)
Posted by: B at January 08, 2013 12:46 PM (VC56G)
The only good thing I can say about Peirs Morgan is that he introduced his face to Jeremy Clarkson fist. Who's another American hating douchebag.
Posted by: YIKES! at January 08, 2013 12:46 PM (mETGQ)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:46 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Social Science Graduate Student at January 08, 2013 12:46 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: TexasJew at January 08, 2013 12:47 PM (lD8ju)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 12:47 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: RWC at January 08, 2013 12:47 PM (fWAjv)
Hasten the fight. Hasten the settlement of the small vs big government question.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at January 08, 2013 12:48 PM (zpqa2)
Funny, in that Morgan claimed a few years ago that the "baby slap" left a permanent scar over his left eyebrow
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 12:48 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: charlie gibson at January 08, 2013 12:48 PM (VDovR)
The real, physical world is far more interesting than you know. Pursuing unfounded fantasy like UFOs, Bigfoot and psychic powers in any context other than fiction distracts from the more interesting and complex reality.
People go the Alex Jones route because they're too intellectually lazy to learn about the real world, so take an easy shortcut to conspiracy theory / paranormal bullshit.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 12:48 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 12:48 PM (GFM2b)
He pissed off the Canadian mob back in the 90s and ended up turning a wall into a Jackson Pollock painting with his brains.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 04:47 PM (e0xKF)
And in 1990 there were 2,200 murders in NYC. Not over cigs.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:48 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 04:40 PM (l86i3)
-------------------------------------------------
This X 1000. If you want to do drugs, then do them. You'll die sooner. I'm tired of paying for your drug-induced fuck ups and attitudes.
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 12:49 PM (J/7oO)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:49 PM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: charlie gibson at January 08, 2013 12:49 PM (VDovR)
I think I'm going to knock off early and get a beer.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at January 08, 2013 12:49 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 12:49 PM (WSgyE)
"It was just nice to see Piers get his ass ripped off for once."
There were two people in the room. One was a calm guy with a British accent and the other was a screaming lunatic.
The lunatic didn't win.
Posted by: jwest at January 08, 2013 12:49 PM (ZDsRL)
that was the Rizzuto clan in all likelihood....
and yeah the hard cig smugglers will kill you.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 12:50 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 12:50 PM (b+8h9)
Let's start with the asshole editor, John Cook. I'm willing to put in some research time.
Posted by: Warden at January 08, 2013 12:50 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 12:51 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 12:51 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: andycanuck at January 08, 2013 12:51 PM (ORGYc)
Posted by: Truman at Wal-Mart now at January 08, 2013 12:52 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 12:52 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at January 08, 2013 12:52 PM (Lxw+T)
Like "that other guy" we need to approach this sanely:
Periodically put someone on his show who can verbally slap him around, showing how stupid he is, but
NEVER watch his show, even when "our guy" is on.
Morgan lives and dies by "as long as you spell my name right," much like "that other guy."
Don't spell his name right. Don't even mention it.
Posted by: RobM1981 at January 08, 2013 12:52 PM (4WC+3)
I'd just be happy to stop creating gangbangers and sending them to jail on our dimes.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:53 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: george orwell's ghey ghost at January 08, 2013 12:53 PM (VDovR)
Now, I understand that he is engaging in a propaganda effort for L'il Barry.
Which, if things go bad in our country, could go badly for the piersmorgan.
What does he hope to gain? Ratings?
Ratings don't matter any more, acc. to Limbaugh's take on the sale price of Algore's unwatched network: high price/no audience. What's the game? Fame?
pfft
Posted by: Thorvald at January 08, 2013 12:53 PM (1V6Pv)
So when the heroin addict can't afford to buy his government supplied heroin anymore because he is too fucked up to earn his own money, where is he going to get either the money or the heroin? My tax money that's where.
Bad enough I will eventually be paying for the potheads.
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 12:53 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 12:54 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Gamestop clerk at January 08, 2013 12:54 PM (e0xKF)
Get the fuck out. A commie, and George Soros is his numma one Boy.
Open society my ass. Liberaltarians may swallow that shit. Veddy Budittish.
Posted by: comatus at January 08, 2013 12:54 PM (qaVK+)
HJ I doubt the gangbangers become model citizens bud...they would simply find a new niche.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 12:54 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 12:54 PM (r2PLg)
"anti-capitalism" than pot--if you tried for a decade.
Hahahaha!
I made a metric buttload of money on pot back in the day.
Posted by: The Bullshit Flag at January 08, 2013 12:55 PM (I7O5y)
Since when is skepticism about psychiatry, the pill-peddling pseudoscience, taboo? Was Aldous Huxley just blowing smoke?
Posted by: MadisonConservative at January 08, 2013 12:55 PM (sb+ta)
HJ I doubt the gangbangers become model citizens bud...they would simply find a new niche.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 04:54 PM (LRFds)
We are creating them now. I'm not saying release them. I'm saying stop making them. In 20 years the gangbanger pipeline will have slowed to a drip.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:56 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: cajun carrot, Thunder Dome or Bust! at January 08, 2013 12:56 PM (UZQM8)
A conservative argument against is that people may freely choose to use them but once they have become addicted they are a slave to the substance. If you care about individual freedom, you will not want a legal framework that is indifferent to drug use. At least with alcohol most people will use it without getting intoxicated. I drink but have never had too much to suffer a hangover the next day. If we had a society where the large majority had the rate of alcoholism as Native Americans, you could make a conservative case for prohibiting booze too.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 08, 2013 12:56 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 04:51 PM (r2PLg)
___
I don't know about that. Of the many gun enthusiasts in my personal and professional network, few of them voted at all. No matter how I tried to convince the nonvoters, they didn't care about elections and thought GOP and donks equally corrupt. These guys are serious gun owners, crossbow hunters, for all I know they've got armaments left over from Vietnam stashed away somewhere. And they don't vote. How many of the millions who didn't show up on November 6 are dedicated gun owners?
Who has the ability to effectively disarm them?
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 12:57 PM (jm/9g)
btw, one of my answers to morgan's only 35 murders in UK would be 'so what, we don't have a fuckin king and queen either'.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 08, 2013 12:57 PM (p/cQy)
Half. YOU ARE subsidizing their livelihoods.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 12:58 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Dave S. at January 08, 2013 12:58 PM (8Jp6C)
Posted by: USA at January 08, 2013 12:58 PM (RIg+t)
Posted by: Jimmy Saville at January 08, 2013 12:58 PM (ygAxO)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 12:58 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Al Capone's Vault at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (WSgyE)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (GBXon)
Sorry disagree.
If anything the problem gets worse when you force them into a new market.
Gangs and black markets are a necessary byproduct of freedom.
The Mafia understood that Prohibition was a pump and dump and started readying smack in the late '30s as a new cash crop.
There's organized crime and gang thuggery even in porn.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (LRFds)
How did that turn out again?
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 04:49 PM (WSgyE)
-----------------------------------------------
There's a difference. When Ocare was passed, the dems had the preezyship, the senate, AND the house. I also think gun control, as unbelievable as it may sound, hits a much deeper nerve in this society than Ocare did.
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (J/7oO)
Posted by: jakeman at January 08, 2013 12:59 PM (96M6e)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (l86i3)
Neither have we!
Posted by: Majority of Cable Subscribers at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (e0xKF)
Jay:
Big difference between obamacare and now. We hold the house. Dems barely pushed obamacare through when they had solid majorities in house and senate.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Yip at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (/jHWN)
Heh I let that one go....
a ganger will be a protection racket guy if there is no tangible market....there is ALWAYS organized crime.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (LRFds)
A very small percentage of them are there for using or possessing small amounts for their own use.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (SY2Kh)
Sorta like how fighting terrorists create them?
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 04:59 PM (GBXon)
And there's the RINO horn.
It's like saying Prohibition didn't create Capone.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Truman at Wal-Mart now at January 08, 2013 01:00 PM (DOysX)
It looks to me like they've effectively disarmed themselves, by pretending there was no difference between a Democrat and a GOP Presidency or Senate.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at January 08, 2013 01:01 PM (BIJKO)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:01 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 01:01 PM (wwsoB)
Posted by: Cosmo at January 08, 2013 01:01 PM (e0xKF)
Nope, no down-side.
Posted by: Thorvald at January 08, 2013 01:01 PM (1V6Pv)
The old smut shops have a thug element....
we morons tend to overestimate the % of people who are as web happy as we are.
I lived around the corner from a shop in Columbia SC....
"odd"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:01 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (GFM2b)
A very small percentage of them are there for using or possessing small amounts for their own use.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 05:00 PM (SY2Kh)
We create the environment for gangbangers to be created and thrive.
End the drug war, and the pipeline would dry up.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Hamilton Burger at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (J+6te)
Posted by: Yip at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: andycanuck at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (ORGYc)
My two cents.....
Not sure where I m heading with this..... other than to illustrate varying degrees of belief.
I do believe in an "after" when we die. Our conciousness/soul/spirit/energy survives after our death.
Give the mathematic number of earthlike planets in the billions on billions of galaxies in the observable universe.... I really dont think we are alone.
Having said that..... when somebody claims to have seen a ghost or ridden in a UFO...... my skeptometer usually pegs red.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (nELVU)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (r2PLg)
the Coke in Cocaine Days--coincided with The Depression.
Coca-Cola stopped putting cocaine in their formula in 1903.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 01:02 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:03 PM (GBXon)
Yup...I've seen this movie before.
Wait until Barry introduces the US to "Kulak"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:03 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Yip at January 08, 2013 01:03 PM (/jHWN)
It's an issue that helps shred our privacy, militarizes our police, expands the federal leviathan, creates war zones in our cities, etc etc.
All that for squat. Drug use rates are the same as before.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:03 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (WSgyE)
The government's money stream is slowing to a trickle; the unions, both private and public sector, are being defanged at the state level. 2014 looks like another Tea Party wave. Federal tax hikes can't be papered over with the electorate and inflation will hit the afterburner. Gas prices are going up, again. The last toss of the iron dice.
Posted by: mrp at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 04:58 PM (VtjlW)
I hope the story ends soon.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: General Zod at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (2+bRt)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:04 PM (e0xKF)
Drugs brought China to it's knees, overthrew several thousand years of Imperial rule, allowed the much smaller nation of Japan to invade and conquer it, and ended up creating so much misery and disaster that the people accepted a Dictator to put an end to it.
Legalized Drugs would run away like a Black Plague epidemic, leaving death, destruction and misery in it's wake. As bad as is the War on Drugs, the alternative would be far worse.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (bb5+k)
the Coke in Cocaine Days--coincided with The Depression.
So--probably harder to measure the effects.
Posted by: tasker
Huh? The 1891 depression?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (djdc7)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (VtjlW)
@ 247
Thanks for believing in me! Everybody has to believe in something, I believe I'll have another cocktail before dinner.
Posted by: george orwell's ghey ghost at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (VDovR)
Let's put it another way: Is it making them, or just making them more obvious?
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 05:03 PM (GBXon)
Little from column A, a little from column B. Black kids in the inner-city would be much less inclined to join gangs if it wasn't "easy" money.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (xAtAj)
you think the Left wants us to live our lives and keep our stuff? Think they aren't planning our Demise?
you don't need to be a Scientology whack job to know which way the Wind is blowing, man
Posted by: Frank in Frankfurt at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (Dll6b)
And an at least equally strong bias toward not liking exactly what they're told not to like. And a stronger bias than any other against knowing how they came to dislike what they dislike, to "know" what they "know," to think they are who they think they are--and that Those People need a good seeing-to.
A system like the one the Constitution describes accounts, to a degree, for how blindly and/or maliciously we decide. But really, that's beyond accounting for. Political liberty is an unbearable imposition on people, a restraint they can't endure. It can't last, and so it doesn't. And didn't.
And it won't, ever, anywhere.
It's like an amazingly elaborate and delicate ice sculpture. In Hell.
Posted by: oblig. at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (cePv8)
Piers Morgan: Under investigation in the UK phone hacking scandal while editor of the Daily Mirror
This is the man the leftists want carrying their water? One of the most hated persons in his native country?
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 01:05 PM (wwsoB)
HJ I am not a fan of the 'drug war" I do know the "legalization" of it is not a panacea of ANY kind....
I said legalize it all and let Darwin sort it the fuck out.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:06 PM (LRFds)
It's like saying Prohibition didn't create Capone.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 05:00 PM (xAtAj)
Prohibition didn't create Capone. He was into rackets, numbers and prostitution and murder way before Prohibition.
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:06 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:06 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: RWC at January 08, 2013 01:06 PM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Al Roker at January 08, 2013 01:06 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:06 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 01:07 PM (WSgyE)
Jay:
Problem with that is that it violates federal law prohibiting federal government agencies from doing that anyway.
ATF already tracks/keeps records of "multiple gun" purchases in violation of federal law.
I doubt he goes the EO route, but if he does then the House can defund whatever agency implements the laws.
We have weapons, it's time to fight.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 01:07 PM (tVTLU)
only The Shadow and the Chiefs of Coke know for sure...
Posted by: Frank in Frankfurt at January 08, 2013 01:07 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 05:06 PM (m2CN7)
Again, another gotcha. Are you saying booze wasn't a factor in the violence during Prohibition?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:07 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (GBXon)
http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_and_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ #NukeIowaCity at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Transgendered Midget Hooker Defense Network at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Darii at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (qe/bW)
All that for squat. Drug use rates are the same as before.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 05:03 PM (xAtAj)
Yes they are, and you can thank the War on Drugs for keeping them flat. Normal growth of drug usage is logistical (A variation of exponential growth) When China legalized Opium sale and usage, growth started slowly, but within 70 years half the population of Manchuria was addicted to opium.
The stuff spreads exactly like an infectious disease. (if you let it.)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (bb5+k)
There will still be "easy" money out there if the War On Drugs goes away. It'll just move into a different form.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 05:06 PM (e0xKF)
You think new markets would open up to fill it's spot? Kids on every street corner in bad neighborhoods selling ___?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:08 PM (r2PLg)
As for Giffords... she was shot by a Lefty for being too moderate. I guess she learned her lesson?
Posted by: DANEgerus at January 08, 2013 01:09 PM (e3/KR)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 05:04 PM (l86i3)
I agree. I've always advocated for the death penalty for dealers. They deal death they get death.
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:09 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 01:09 PM (b+8h9)
I've already responded previously to the laughably wrong insinuation that drug use rates are exponential, or would be exponential here.
You think 50% of Americans would be on heroin if it were legal?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:09 PM (xAtAj)
are you saying there was no mob violence post prohibition?
If anything the violence was bad in part because too many rookies tried breaking into the game because it was obvious the big dry was gonna go down and it was a HUGE cash grab.
Harry Truman and JFK both got power through booze money.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:10 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:10 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:10 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Yip at January 08, 2013 01:10 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 01:11 PM (WSgyE)
Personally, I see no value in bestiality
Does that mean you're volunteering to bang Kathy Griffin yourself then?
Posted by: Entropy at January 08, 2013 01:11 PM (TULs6)
Posted by: Ed Wood VS Godzilla at January 08, 2013 01:12 PM (obHYs)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:12 PM (e0xKF)
Yup...
and thanks to LIBERALS IN CHARGE we have a hypersexualized youth that seldom hears the word "no"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:12 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 05:02 PM (r2PLg)
___
They only represent a portion of the no-shows. These are not the TruCons who hate RINO types. They are totally apolitical. They want themselves and their guns left alone.
It looks to me like they've effectively disarmed themselves, ...Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at January 08, 2013 05:01 PM (BIJKO)
---
They still are in possession of their weapons. I guess I used the wrong qualifier, I shouldn't have said "effectively". Who will actually disarm them?
Are jackboots going to show up at their homes and confiscate their weapons?
I don't think we're there yet.
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 01:12 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Winston Zeddemore at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (obHYs)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 05:05 PM (bb5+k)
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm just thinking that it's just so much easier for a government/tyranny to dictate to a drugged populace.
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (J/7oO)
Yes, but in his interview with Piers Morgan, did Alex Jones talk about what is really important? I am, of course, referring to the central message of Jones' film, 'Endgame' (starring Dr. Ron Paul), Jones' searing expose of spider-goat DNA hybridization experiments being conducted in secret Illuminati laboratories, in collusion with, ahem, the (Jewish) Rothschild banking family and the dreaded Bildersburgers, whose overarching goal is to reduce the mass of humanity to slavery, held in thrall by near-immortal, genetically engineered ruling caste comprised, presumably, of Jewish bankers.
Here's a conspiracy for you: the not-so-secret socialists running the federal government, with media collusion, are attempting to push those who oppose them to darkness of the fringe by associating gun owners (and religious believers and patriots and free enterprise capitalists) with oddball characters like Alex Jones.
Posted by: troyriser at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (vtiE6)
always was a total wanker; always totally aware of his wanker-ness
Posted by: Frank in Frankfurt at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 05:07 PM (xAtAj
Turf wars were the proximate producing cause of the violence whether they would be fighting over controlling gambling or prostitution or drugs or alcohol.
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (m2CN7)
Back to topic:
Alex Jones is only good in the sense of he makes humorous clips of him simply melting down in paranoid fever.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:13 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Molon Labe at January 08, 2013 01:14 PM (ygAxO)
Posted by: RWC at January 08, 2013 01:14 PM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:14 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: kid on a bad street corner at January 08, 2013 01:15 PM (ORGYc)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:15 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:15 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 05:12 PM (jm/9g)
---------------------------------------------
There's one word in that sentence that's key to what we're facing.
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 01:15 PM (J/7oO)
Late to this thread but I'm having the horrible thought that this school shooting is somehow mutating into our Reichstag Fire.
I pray that it not be so.
Posted by: LGoPs at January 08, 2013 01:15 PM (BJVEF)
You are claiming that the market will simply get filled by something else.
Like somehow the illegal drug market is just a placeholder for other vices.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:15 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at January 08, 2013 01:16 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 08, 2013 01:16 PM (VtjlW)
You seem to want to pretend that violent crime in the drug trade is based on money as reward rather than power.
Plenty of places in the US you can get a person killed over 50 bucks.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:16 PM (LRFds)
Are you arguing that it would be absolutely and totally flat? If so how did we go from 0% up to 2 % ??????
You think 50% of Americans would be on heroin if it were legal?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 05:09 PM (xAtAj)
Probably not. It would follow a logistical growth pattern, but because the fatality rate is so high, it would never likely reach 50%. They would just be dying off too fast to spread it at a rate fast enough to achieve 50%. But still, I don't see a plus side to having millions of dead people.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:16 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:17 PM (GBXon)
More Alex Morgan.
http://olympicgirls.net/sport-girls/alex-morgan_02.jpg
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 08, 2013 01:17 PM (S/WR4)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:17 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:18 PM (+DMSZ)
eh....
"eh"
We discussing Mook on Mook crime or crime at large?
I study the mob when insomnia strikes was the violence ever as bad as "peak"?
No but they still were chicago.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:18 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 05:17 PM (GBXon)
Yeah I'm going to respond to a complete leap of logic.
Terrorism is not a product or good people value. Terrorism is a tactic to achieve goals.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:18 PM (xAtAj)
End the drug war, and the pipeline would dry up.
You and anyone else can talk about what you feel should be done regarding drug laws and the "war on drugs", but the reality is that substances like heroin, crack and meth will never be legalized (short of societal collapse).
That's the main problem I have with Libertarians and every other form of idealist be they Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian or Rastafarian. No matter how long or loudly they circle-jerk over how great their idealistic vision of society would be, it remains idealistic fantasy that will never happen. So what's the point?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 01:18 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 08, 2013 01:18 PM (3wlvV)
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 08, 2013 01:18 PM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Kosrow Vazziri at January 08, 2013 01:19 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 08, 2013 01:19 PM (sPDBV)
Ah, well I'm under no delusions. Weed will be legalized, eventually I'm guessing. But the American public is pro-Drug War and they will be for a long time.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:19 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:20 PM (xAtAj)
Posted by: Entropy at January 08, 2013 01:21 PM (TULs6)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:21 PM (m2CN7)
Just google Zheng Minsheng and Chinese attack.
Murdered 8 schoolchildren with a knife.
GUNS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
Unless someone looks at the real root causes of this mania we are just going in circles. The NRA's proposal is the only one that could serve as a legit defense against madmen.
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 08, 2013 01:21 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 05:15 PM (J/7oO)
__
Yes I know what you mean. Maybe my view is colored by my environment. Although a Philly suburbanite, my roots are in a Pennsyltucky-ish town where the Stars and Bars can still fly and no one dares utter a syllable against it.
I come from a town that is avoided by the perps who hopscotch over it because they know damn well that the rednecks who inhabit it are armed to the teeth. (This is in purple Pennsylvania.)
Who is going to take their guns?
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 01:22 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 08, 2013 01:22 PM (oKVrA)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 01:22 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:22 PM (+DMSZ)
They are still banned from donating blood because physicians are knowledgeable about the incidence of disease in the Homosexual community. (Were it not for Modern Medicine and Modern Media, the AIDS epidemic would have wiped out millions more people.)
40% of Homosexuals in one JAMA study indicate that they were molested as children. The incidence of molestation is very high among members of the Homosexual community, but this is widely covered up by advocates for that side.
That is a very brief outline of the more obvious dangers to society which this lifestyle presents. I would go into more detail in a proper forum, but this is about all that can be pointed out in a comments section.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:24 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:24 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: Truman at Stop (ampersand) Shop at January 08, 2013 01:26 PM (DOysX)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 01:26 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:27 PM (r2PLg)
"With a Friend Like Harry" just started on STARZ, iffn you got that channel and appreciate that sort of Thing
Posted by: open the pod bay doors, HAL at January 08, 2013 01:27 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:27 PM (+DMSZ)
I'm just thinking that it's just so much easier for a government/tyranny to dictate to a drugged populace.
Posted by: Soona at January 08, 2013 05:13 PM (J/7oO)
A Drugged populace won't obey the government either. Mao had to order all the drug addicts killed to solve China's drug problem. The reason we are stuck at 2% addiction is because the American public won't tolerate what it would take to bring it down to zero, and the drug problem cannot be eliminated with half-measures.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:27 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:28 PM (+DMSZ)
Duly noted....a liberal douche wworking for a liberal douche who portrayed by accident a decent conservative.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:30 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:30 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 01:31 PM (l86i3)
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 01:31 PM (r2PLg)
Good question. Let me answer a question with a question: if they're going to use these guns for actual self-defense instead of target shooting and someplace other than out-of-earshot of someone who's going to call the police and report gunfire.
Basically, if Zero/That Fcking Guy goes through with his executive order shit, and his supreme court shit, he doesn't have to round them up, he can just have the book thrown at you if you actually use one to defend yourself. Imagine how much quicker the Zimmerman trial would have gone by now possession of an "assault pistol" would have been enough to put him away for a couple dozen years.
Enact the "right" laws, then ratchet up the lawlessness as the economy collapses to Venezuela levels, and selectively enforce them on anyone who defends themselves from a gang...
Do these people ever intend on using these guns rather than keeping them buried in the garden and sprinkling rem oil on the carrots every once in a while?
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at January 08, 2013 01:31 PM (BIJKO)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 05:21 PM (m2CN7)
Japan imported tons of Opium into China for decades prior to their invasion. They were softening the target and making money at the same time.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:31 PM (bb5+k)
The pro-legalization crowd that trot out stats showing a high percentage of prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses usually include crimes tangentially related to drugs. Things like robbing a store to get drug money, committing murder over a drug debt or because they were high on meth, etc.
It's a bit dishonest, though not completely.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 01:32 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at January 08, 2013 01:34 PM (IrbU4)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:34 PM (+DMSZ)
Possessing a joint might be considered a drug-related crime, but practically nobody goes to prison for it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 01:35 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:38 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet
Not until they feel the full brunt of their stupidity. Pain instructs like no other.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 08, 2013 01:39 PM (djdc7)
people justifying their habits are capable of serious CD in the arguing.
I am favoring normalization because I want to Cloward-Piven US healthcare if the Feds are our slavemasters on the issue.
I *am* evil on this point.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 01:40 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at January 08, 2013 05:31 PM (BIJKO)
__
The guys I know have firearms (and crossbows) for hunting and guns for self-defense. How they store them I do not know. They do not seem the type to keep them buried in the garden.
I grew up in a house that was a virtual armory. My dad was a hunter, but he also had handguns and rifles and any other weapon that he might need to defend his person and his family. He slept with a shotgun under his bed. One morning he woke up to find the car he'd just bought for mom disappeared. He must have had a clue who stole it because that evening he and one of his boys went out with rifles. The next morning the car was back in the driveway. No police were involved.
I understand it was a different time, but this is also evidence of a culture that is very much alive in these parts - and we're not even a red state. Will the commie feds attempt to put a legislative squeeze on gun ownership? No doubt. But if they ever try to physically confiscate the personal armories of the populace, they will meet resistance.
And they know it. That's why they're trotting out poor Gabby Giffords to launch these soft confiscation intitiatives such as the gun givebacks.
I hope the NRA knows to counter with ads showing moms who saved their children by using firearms.
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 01:41 PM (jm/9g)
Serious question.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 08, 2013 01:41 PM (UypUQ)
The prohibitions against homosexuality didn't just spring up naturally. Cultures across the globe and history created them.
So if we wish to end these prohibitions, we should understand why they were there in the first place.
Yet this doesn't seem to be allowed. Any argument against gay marriage always* is dismissed as hate/homophobia/bible worship, etc.
Same with pot.
(*Feel free to substitute "usually" for "always" if you're not down with the whole absolutism of the above referenced sentence.)
Posted by: Adam at January 08, 2013 01:42 PM (C+qQ0)
Are jackboots going to show up at their homes and confiscate their weapons?
I don't think we're there yet.
Posted by: kallisto at January 08, 2013 05:12 PM (jm/9g)
The US military is still mostly made up of their sons.
Posted by: tasker at January 08, 2013 05:27 PM (r2PLg)
My own son, an infantry private, included.
However, that doesn't mean there won't be midnight knocks on the door coming our way. I would argue that the best tactic for an oppressive federal government would be employing selective arrests, targeting those they view as key opinion leaders of the opposition, not mass arrests with the mass panic and unrest that would certainly follow from such a thing. Further, if the feds tell state or municipal LE agencies that a heavily armed, mad-dog domestic terrorist lives within their jurisdiction (we're looking at another Timothy McVey-like scenario here, Chief) and would they please provide local assistance? Most would comply.
Thanks to the militarization of law enforcement via funding and programs supplied by the federal government, most municipal LE--no matter how rural or peaceful--are now equipped with the latest SWAT armaments and gear. We're not talking Mayberry PD. Mayberry isn't Mayberry, not anymore.
Posted by: troyriser at January 08, 2013 01:42 PM (vtiE6)
OT
Charlie Sheen is calling out L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ... claiming he was flat-out LYING when he said he spent ONLY 3 minutes with the actor in Cabo -- Charlie says the Mayor hung with him for hours, chatting it up and drinking with a bunch
Posted by: thunderb at January 08, 2013 01:42 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 08, 2013 01:42 PM (l86i3)
Serious question.
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 08, 2013 05:41 PM (UypUQ)
Wouldn't work for synthesized drugs.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 08, 2013 01:43 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 08, 2013 01:44 PM (e0xKF)
It's not always intentional dishonesty.
I imagine that someone reads an article about how a high percentage of prisoners say that they committed crimes as a (direct or indirect) result of drug use and/or dealing, and they later mis-remember it as "50% of prisoners are there for drug offenses".
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 01:45 PM (SY2Kh)
I'm not sure what my point is, other than Piers Morgan sucks.
Posted by: weew at January 08, 2013 01:47 PM (ElfHn)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:48 PM (FsUAO)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 01:48 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Scourge of Zeta Reticulae at January 08, 2013 01:49 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:49 PM (FsUAO)
Posted by: mrp at January 08, 2013 01:49 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:49 PM (FsUAO)
"There's got to be a level of discourse that can rise above what happened last night. It was undignified, unedifying"
A level of discourse like...
Piers Morgan’s “discussion” with Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, including the gem: PM - "You’re in an unbelievably stupid man!".
Posted by: Brian at January 08, 2013 01:50 PM (Hd5n8)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:51 PM (FsUAO)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:51 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:51 PM (FsUAO)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 08, 2013 01:51 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:52 PM (FsUAO)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 08, 2013 01:52 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:53 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 05:08 PM
Guns, cigarettes, Big Gulps, et al
As long as government "knows what's best for you", there'll be banned products that the public wants and their "betters" don't want them to have.
Posted by: kbdabear at January 08, 2013 01:54 PM (wwsoB)
Yes, but you'd need to use a crossbow.
Posted by: pep at January 08, 2013 01:54 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 01:55 PM (FsUAO)
I'm not sure what my point is, other than Piers Morgan sucks.
Posted by: weew at January 08, 2013 05:47 PM (ElfHn)
Does it mean that he'd be better suited to be absolute monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland than the current figureheads and neutered nanny-staters that currently run it?
Then again, I've recently figured out that I watch Top Gear for James May, not Clarkson. Make of that what you will.
Posted by: Professor Marius von Totenkopf (formerly Hoss Fuentes) at January 08, 2013 01:55 PM (aozUR)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 01:55 PM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Jean at January 08, 2013 01:57 PM (74T7W)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 01:57 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: navybrat at January 08, 2013 01:58 PM (BzGtc)
I've had many a liberal get frustrated with me over that very point. When I tell them, and demonstrate, that I can argue their side more convincingly than they can, that I understand their own philosophy better than they do. It is a huge blow to a liberal to be shown to be ignorant. They pride themselves as not being the unwashed masses "who just don't understand". At that point I usually pre-empt their attacks on my virtue. Because it is like clockwork with a liberal.
If you disagree, it's because
1. You don't understand. Let me explain (Which they do quite poorly)
2. Oh...You do understand, and still disagree? You must be evil then.
That is the total scope of liberal thinking toward their opposition, that they fall into at least one of two categories. Stupid, or evil.
aside Rosecrucianism learned something new. Had no idea what that was.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 08, 2013 01:58 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 08, 2013 01:58 PM (+DMSZ)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 08, 2013 01:59 PM (bxiXv)
or "Indirect" like "hey I need money to buy my heroin"
Both are indirect, as neither murder or theft are drug offenses.
Legalizing drugs wouldn't negate the addict's need for heroin money, and the criminal gang member protecting his turf is still likely to be in a gang whether they deal drugs or not.
Point is, those who cite statistics claiming a high percentage of prisoners being incarcerated for drug crimes typically do so in an attempt to (falsely) portray a prison system full of people who committed no crime other than using drugs.
Legalizing meth wouldn't turn an unemployable, thieving addict into an upstanding, law abiding member of society.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 08, 2013 02:00 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Jean at January 08, 2013 02:02 PM (74T7W)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 08, 2013 02:04 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at January 08, 2013 02:08 PM (FsUAO)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 08, 2013 02:08 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: polynikes at January 08, 2013 05:57 PM (m2CN7)
_____________
Come on seriously?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 08, 2013 02:10 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Titanic Steward at January 08, 2013 02:12 PM (zoFYo)
they say, a good lawyer, one who really understands the issues of the
case, can argue either side of it effectively. He may favor one side
over the other, but he knows enough of both to make a strong case for
either.
I've had many a liberal get frustrated with me over that very point. When I tell them, and demonstrate, that I can argue their side more convincingly than they can, that I understand their own philosophy better than they do. It is a huge blow to a liberal to be shown to be ignorant. They pride themselves as not being the unwashed masses "who just don't understand". At that point I usually pre-empt their attacks on my virtue. Because it is like clockwork with a liberal.
If you disagree, it's because
1. You don't understand. Let me explain (Which they do quite poorly)
2. Oh...You do understand, and still disagree? You must be evil then.
That is the total scope of liberal thinking toward their opposition, that they fall into at least one of two categories. Stupid, or evil.
aside Rosecrucianism learned something new. Had no idea what that was.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 08, 2013 05:58 PM (0q2P7)
_____________
Heh. I do that too libs I know. I'll just casually say something like "well you know I don't agree with your position on X, but so and so liberal scholar does make a valid point that X might work if Y happens". 9/10 times they have no clue what I'm talking about and it is quite delicious watching them try to figure out what the fuck just happened. They can't disagree with me because it would mean disagreeing with themselves and they can't agree with me because, well shit I'm a right wing loon and they can't agree with a right wing loon either.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 08, 2013 02:15 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Deli LLama at January 08, 2013 02:16 PM (lGu1O)
I also have trouble with anyone who says I wish to ban something "because I don't like it." That is not a reason, it is an excuse.
If I learned anything in design school, it was that things "are" for a reason, not an excuse. If you can't say why something is done, cogently, intellectually, then you can't do it in good conscience. Otherwise, nothing is of value, except as a hedonistic experience, which eventually leads to utter chaos.
Posted by: tcn at January 08, 2013 02:20 PM (VLG62)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 02:22 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 08, 2013 02:23 PM (6H6FZ)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 02:23 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 08, 2013 02:26 PM (b+8h9)
I call BS. Drugs are detrimental to society. Therefore, society is perfectly within it's right to try to get rid of drugs or eliminate the detriment, i.e. jail the offenders.
You wanna get high, do it outside the law.
Posted by: tcn at January 08, 2013 02:26 PM (VLG62)
Well if your "drugs" included caffeine that would include coffee tea and chocolate among others.
If your "drugs" included alcohol it would mean exterminating just about every plant on earth.
If your "drugs" included opiates it would include giving up Morphine, Hydrocodone, Oxycodone, and various other pain relievers given to the terminally ill, grievously injured, or those recovering from surgery.
Oh wait. Nevermind you can synthesize ALL of those things. And you can synthesize Heroin, and cocaine, and THC, Meth has always been synthetic. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this mass extinction event?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 08, 2013 02:34 PM (0q2P7)
Piers Morgan? Geraldo Rivera? Pfffft. Fucking lightweights.
You haven't "arrived" until you've crapped your pants at the White house.
Posted by: Al Roker at January 08, 2013 02:43 PM (wAQA5)
===
The hilariously ironic thing I've always found about this is that it's the exact same mindset used to morally justify the old colonialism, which they hate with a burning passion (or at least profess to). "We're not going in to steal all their resources; we're going in to CIVILIZE them, because our culture is THE culture".
-The fringe kook stuff:
Ghosts - Dunno. In both my parents' and grandparents' houses, I've seen and heard weird enough shit to be a fence-sitter here. Logically I want to say "no", but I've also seen things like clocks falling off the wall, sit there for about three seconds on the floor, then slide 10' across the floor like someone kicked it, up the slope of the floor, in my grandma's house.
UFOs - Atmospheric phenomena and test aircraft. Aliens remotest of possibilities, but highly unlikely.
Atlantis - Possible as embellished fragments of an old tale about a real event if talking about the Plato account. Probably Santorini. The others are full of it (spaceships, flying castles, etc).
faeries in the garden - no
astral projection - no
pyramid power - no
Rosecrucianism - no
psychic abilities - no
Shadow People - no
Bigfoot - possibly at least used to exist. Too many family accounts to discount. These going back to the late 1940's and early 1950's on mom's side of great uncles, grandpa, great grandpa, and neighbors changing entire hunting grounds (bear in mind, these were experienced woodsmen living in homesteads in Missouri with miles between neighbors) because they say they saw one in the area. Local name back then was "Beaman Monster", and they won't talk about it to anyone outside the family.
It doesn't help me here that I don't put much stock in what naturalists say are in an area, just based on personal experience: "No coyotes in the Cincinnati Area, stop calling, you're seeing a neighbor's dog": Now we have a coyote infestation. "No mountain lions left in the Ozarks" : I've seen them skulking in the woods when out there visiting grandma, almost hit one with the car one night about 5-6 years ago, hear them yelling some nights when out there.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at January 08, 2013 02:50 PM (G99e4)
Posted by: Socratease at January 08, 2013 02:51 PM (3V4IJ)
Posted by: Yet another CT moron at January 08, 2013 02:52 PM (Xf6HL)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 02:55 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 03:02 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: Jay at January 08, 2013 03:04 PM (WSgyE)
Same with homosexuality, once upon a time, 30 or 40 years ago, when anti-homosexuality laws were occasionally enforced -- it is trivially easy for heterosexuals to find no value in homosexual sex, given that we don't like it (and in fact are repelled at the idea of taking part in it ourselves)
It's not finding no value in it, it's that male homosexuality (the only one lawmakers, or the Bible for that matter) really considered, constitutes a public health hazard. Guys will root their brains out with everyone and anyone (gotta spread those polliwogs), but normally are prevented from doing this by women, who slow us down.
Remove women from the equation, then introduce a disease, and it's on. Patient Zero of AIDS fame claimed (IIRC) to have had something like 5000 partners (!) in a three year period. Even today, male homosexuals are the major reservoirs of STDs (AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis B), and keep the prevalence higher than it otherwise would be.
So efforts to discourage homosexuality weren't just a matter of taste, but also public health, much like those against spitting on the sidewalk, or requiring food handlers to wash their hands after relieving themselves.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 08, 2013 03:06 PM (DXlwL)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 08, 2013 03:06 PM (Y5I9o)
Nevermind you can synthesize ALL of those things. And you can synthesize Heroin, and cocaine, and THC
Strictly speaking, it is true, but wholly impractical to synthesize these drugs de novo in any quantity. It's like saying you could build your own car, starting with digging up iron ore. True, in principle, but as a practical matter ...
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 08, 2013 03:12 PM (DXlwL)
Posted by: Fritz at January 08, 2013 03:14 PM (w3+gB)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 03:18 PM (zV+kv)
White people.
Posted by: kathysaysso at January 08, 2013 03:22 PM (y5uWA)
It is now, but only because it's cheaper to use the naturally derived versions.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 08, 2013 03:32 PM (HoGA+)
Posted by: MorphysGhost at January 08, 2013 03:38 PM (tDieS)
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 08, 2013 07:32 PM (HoGA+)
No, it's because synthesizing these things de novo takes considerable synthetic skill, expensive reagents and solvents, and lots and lots of steps by highly skilled chemists. It is very much like building your own car, starting with digging up iron ore. Without the semi-synthetic versions, we wouldn't have many drugs. See: taxol. Something like a 30 step synthesis that produced a few milligrams of stuff. Chemists carry out such syntheses for bragging rights and to prove that the structure assigned to the drug is correct.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 08, 2013 03:40 PM (DXlwL)
Posted by: Mohammed film maker at January 08, 2013 03:45 PM (fgbiK)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 04:02 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 04:10 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 04:12 PM (zV+kv)
Protestantism, even in its most watered-down form, is singular and different from Catholicism.
THIS.
We were a British colony with the Protestant work ethic and Adam Smith and the Scots and all kinds of independent-minded trends and tendencies in our DNA. Latin America has none of this.
Spain reconstructed the feudal system in its colonies whereas the British colonists engaged in self-governance. The first "settlers" in Latin America were conquistadores, not farmers. The soldiers were granted vast tracts of land in the Americas in reward for their service to the crown, and Spanish Honor dictates that gentlemen (nobles, soldiers) NOT sully their hands with manual labor.
So naturally, they enslaved the natives to work the enormous haciendas. The peons in the new feudal society were the natives and the children of the native/Spanish pairings. The Spanish had no problem interbreeding with the American natives, thinking that they were "elevating the race" by so doing.
The Catholic Church in Latin America resumed the same role that it had in Spain: maintain the social order. With its monopoly on religion, the Catholics didn't have to really DO anything to keep their flock intact, so the church didn't instill religious principles so much as administered the sacraments and let it go at that.
Religiosity in Latin America is often mere superstition—pray to the Virgin's image to win the lottery, light a candle to El Niño Jesús de Praga so that your boyfriend doesn't get you pregnant. As an LDS missionary in Colombia, I met exactly 5 Catholics who knew what Catholic doctrine even was: the rest were either ignorant or indifferent or both.
As I said, the Church in Latin America has mostly been an administrative entity, not the dispenser of moral instruction. Most of those who are interested in spiritual improvement and maturity have converted to another Christian sect. The Catholics hardly cracked the Bible in the presence of their congregants, so all the Protestants and Mormons had to do was say, "Hey, wanna learn to read the Bible for your own self?" and that was enough to lure a lot of people away.
(I hasten to add that Catholicism in North America is a different beast: it was never an organ of the state and so it didn't get lazy; it has always had to compete with other religions for parishioners and so must offer something more valuable than its mere existence.)
Even so, Latinos did not grow up with the Protestant work ethic: they dream of the day they are rich enough that they don't HAVE to work. (Latinos in the U.S. are often different or they wouldn't be here in the first place.) Class distinctions are severe enough that manual labor is still looked down on. (They're surprised to come here and find that people don't sneer at their menial jobs.) The economies are not designed to reward hard work; you've got to know someone who knows someone to get a good job—your qualifications (and lack thereof) are irrelevant.
So yes, it IS religion that makes the difference, because not all religions are created equal, and not all religiosity is the same.
Posted by: dicentra at January 08, 2013 04:28 PM (VrEQt)
Posted by: NotCoach at January 08, 2013 04:42 PM (jU7Af)
they undermined the United States while she was at war because they are too pussy to grasp how vulnerable the west really is.
Fuck the truthers they are evil.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 04:47 PM (LRFds)
Except that Trutherism, like its ideological kin Holocaust denial, is evil. It isn't nutty but harmless Aunt Katie talking to pixies in her garden, it's allying yourself to an ideology of mass death.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 08, 2013 05:01 PM (HoGA+)
Posted by: Danny at January 08, 2013 05:19 PM (TBCMG)
Posted by: Danny at January 08, 2013 05:21 PM (TBCMG)
Posted by: Andrew at January 08, 2013 05:46 PM (HS3dy)
I will not countenance a Goddamn truther in our midst. Brother-in-arms to Holocaust denial, trutherism trivializes the murder of 3000 Americans and anyone who promotes, entertains, or accommodates it can go give Satan a hummer.
Posted by: MorphysGhost at January 08, 2013 06:05 PM (tDieS)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 06:11 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 06:13 PM (zV+kv)
The vulnerabilities are endemic to the west, the troofers would rather believe Bush killed 3000 folks than grasp a bunch of pissed off assholes did because if they grasp that we are THAT vulnerable it would involve actually altering your POV on "no half measures"....
they are evil end of story and I am AGAINST the goddamned wars now because I know we already lost this fight in 1979 and accept it.
The left hates us as much as the opfor, and very honestly a good portion of the right thinks they can be the last the gator gets.
better to stop wasting good men and women to NO GAIN.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 06:15 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 06:17 PM (zV+kv)
Sure, no big deal. Other than it's fucking blood libel. So fuck them and fuck you. Come explain that to my face, chickenshit asshole.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 08, 2013 06:20 PM (HoGA+)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 06:23 PM (zV+kv)
I swore an oath to defend the US my wife has multiple combat tours under her belt, our son got to see his mom rocketed back in 2007-2008 on VTC.
The troofer "mind" says that the wife and I are zealous enough in our love of Bush to fake all that or happily help get her there for shits and giggles.
Fuck them all.
I notice that the moose Change kids are not asking Barack Obama why he has not "shown us the troof"....
fuck the anti-semitic motherfuckers.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 06:26 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 06:27 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 06:37 PM (zV+kv)
it is not about "me" it is about "us".......
the troofers are not fit to spit at.
I'd take the worst non prejudicial discharge bound soldier over ANY troofer as a decent human being.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 07:19 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 07:23 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: Danny at January 08, 2013 07:24 PM (qMpC0)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 07:26 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 07:28 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 07:32 PM (zV+kv)
you constantly drawing false equivalency in defense of addled evil minds is hardly worthy of anything other than reiteration.
Fast and furious is evil cloaked in lies and media supplicant butt thrusting to Team ogabe.
America is okay with the president having Mexicans killed....I am going to be less bothered when Mexicans kill Americans as a result.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 08, 2013 07:36 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: entropy at January 08, 2013 07:42 PM (zV+kv)
Posted by: Danny at January 08, 2013 07:46 PM (qMpC0)
Posted by: dicentra at January 08, 2013 08:28 PM (VrEQt)
___
"Hey, wanna learn to read the Bible for your own self?" and that was enough to lure a lot of people away.
It's interesting that you would use a verb that is synonomous with the word "tempt" when referring to a purpose that ostensibly is motivated by concern for an individual's immortal soul.
Have you ever dared venture into an area that is strongly Evangelical? Now THAT mission would take some serious "luring away" power. Do you know which place Evangelicals consider a fertile mission field? Utah state.
Despite LDS and evangelical best efforts Latin America is still predominantly Catholic. It's offensive the way you dismiss their devotion to Christ's Mother. Making candle-burning all about winning the lottery is just as insulting to us as when an LDS member hears jokes about the Mormon church being all about polygamy and magic undergarments.
A friend of mine is LDS, we have had many discussions about our respective religions and I have never heard a fraction of contempt for the Catholic faith that you delivered in one AoS post. We actually emerge from these talks with more respect for each other's religion.
so the church didn't instill religious principles so much as administered the sacraments and let it go at that.
The sacraments are the pillars of the Catholic faith. They are the means by which the grace of Christ is delivered to the recipients. Each sacrament was instituted by Jesus himself.
All those nuns and lay teachers running the classrooms in Latin American schools must just be playing Bingo all day, that's why they don't have time to administer religious principles.
Posted by: kallisto at January 09, 2013 05:26 AM (jm/9g)
The Subjective Theory of Value.
It's the basis for understanding economics. It's what leads inexorably to the conclusion that free markets are the only way to increase wealth.
It's the core reason that Marx was wrong. His Labor Theory of Value was the root of his error.
Posted by: Phinn at January 09, 2013 06:46 AM (oFH2D)
You've misunderstood me. It's the PEOPLE whose devotion is superficial. THEY make candle-burning all about winning the lottery. You can't go house-to-house and talk about religion with people and not pick up on what they think religion is for. I am merely reporting what I observed with my own eyes.
<i>All those nuns and lay teachers running the classrooms in Latin American schools must just be playing Bingo all day, that's why they don't have time to administer religious principles.</i>
I don't know WHAT they're doing, but instilling morals ain't it, because people in Lat. Amer. live horribly sinful lives but don't seem to know it's wrong. I got to experience the rhapsodious gushing of a 14-year-old girl whose father was pimping her out to his skeezy friend: "Oh, it's JUST like we're MARRIED!" We were horrified, but she was utterly unaware that something might be wrong—not even on the level of societal disapproval.
You know how "Catholic Guilt" is a thing up here? It isn't down there. Nobody down there looks to the Church to see how to live morally. It's very sad.
<i>Despite LDS and evangelical best efforts Latin America is still predominantly Catholic. </i>
And the vast majority of them are Catholics by birth, not by conviction. They haven't the faintest idea about Catholic doctrine and only darken the doorway of a church for the sacraments, if then. <i>I see the exact same thing among some Utah Mormons</i>, who just go along because of tradition but haven't absorbed a lick of it.
<i>The sacraments are the pillars of the Catholic faith.</i>
I know what role the sacraments play, but you'll agree that JUST administering the sacraments is not enough. The people must be inspired to follow Christ's example, and from what I saw with my own eyes, the Church in Latin America falls WAY short of it. I saw no evidence of Being Catholic apart from people treating the Saints and the Virgin as Celestial Vending Machines: insert rote prayer, get prize.
<i>I have never heard a fraction of contempt for the Catholic faith that you delivered in one AoS post.</i>
If you or any other devout North-American Catholic were to observe what I did, you'd be contemptuous, too. "WHERE are the pastors?" you'd cry out, seeing so many problems unaddressed and so much ignorance. (I was in the poorer neighborhoods, mind.) You wouldn't interpret portraits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus as evidence of devotion but rather as mere tradition—tradition which they maintain as far as the decorations but not so much in their moral compasses.
You would be angry and outraged, I warrant, because you know what The Church is supposed to do for people, and they apparently don't care.
There is a world of difference between North-American Catholics and the ones down south: the devout Catholics up here use their religion as a moral guide; the devout Catholics down there are mostly superstitious.
I DON'T hold the Catholic Church in contempt—just the Latin American cohort. My dissertation was to be on the 16th-Century Spanish mystics. You can't read Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross without comprehending how much they loved God and his righteousness. I also believe that God raised up John Paul II from his youth to do great and wonderful things, and that he was a willing instrument in God's hand. I think that The Anchoress is one of the most inspiring people on the Internet. I fear not for her soul, nor for the soul of MANY Catholics throughout history.
The original issue, you'll recall, is why the former Iberian colonies are so much worse off than the former British ones. Ace dismissed religion, but I explained why religion is very much a factor—and why. Unfortunately, Latin American Catholicism has not covered itself in glory.
I'm sorry, but there it is. I wish things were different but they're not.
Posted by: dicentra at January 09, 2013 10:19 AM (VrEQt)
tsrbike said:
Legitimate question ace,
Under this rubric, why ban heroin? After all, we may find no value in it, but the Junkie totally does.
----------------
Being pro-liberty means being against anything that would set up "tyranny over the mind of man" - as Thomas Jefferson said. You can't be pro-liberty and not be disturbed the legality of hard addictive drugs that cause a human being to involuntarily destroy himself. If hard drugs are to be legalized, a strong societal support network with legislative backing would need to exist to intercept and reign in anyone who is going over the edge before they destroy themselves.
I propose that drug-using communities be given by law the power to self-regulate, thus giving each group the support network they need to keep from turning their use into abuse. Laws requiring rehab if caught merely using would have almost the same effect but would violate the liberty of anyone who was merely a casual user.
Posted by: hoodaticus at January 09, 2013 05:56 PM (v/b7q)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3627 seconds, 603 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Thorvald at January 08, 2013 12:11 PM (1V6Pv)