General Music Chat

Logical fallacy. Following that line of thinking, nuclear waste was legal to store in your backyard in the 1700s.

The fact that it wasn't AROUND then makes the point moot.

Heroine WAS around then. Look it up.

Do I win now?

A heroin addict breaking into my home to steal sh*t to support their habit sure is infringing upon a few rights. And please don't pretend that that is not a primary behavior of the heroin addict.

Agreed, but the crimes committed by druggies ARE illegal already, and they SHOULD be prosecuted for those crimes. They should be in jail or prison for breaking into your home and stealing, or robbing a liquor store or whatever, but NOT for the drug use itself. Make repeat offenders of the SAME crimes pay a higher penalty.

You would be surprised how many laws would be unneccessary if just that principle was upheld.

Is this the same person who defended the Patriot Act and intrusions upon American citizens, earlier?

Did you read where I said there needs to be checks and balances? In pressing circumstances, I believe some measures are warranted. Let it be proven that the government misuses this ability before jumping off the deep end over it.

How does it really harm you personally, that there is software that keys in on certain words in phone conversations, like "Semplex" or "we'll buy 50 barrells of chlorine by having 50 operatives get 1 gallon apiece in 10 different states" or whatever they key in on.

I have seen no evidence that the local drug dealer got busted through this law, or that someone's extra-marital affair was made public because of it.

Don't YOU usually accuse ME of operating from irrational fear?

Seriously Irminsul, some of these cells are discovered and disbanded and their plots broken up, because of this ability. Is the opposite scenario really preferrable in your mind? Dozens or hundreds dying from exploding buildings? To protect what? An extra-marital affair or something else someone has to hide? Show me where this has EVER been an issue. How many terrorist related deaths are worth supposedly protecting someone's ability to buy coke from a drug dealer for personal use, or some guy bopping his secretary and talking to her on the cell phone setting the next rendevous up.

This country is too diverse, and the media too varied and vast for this to become a Nazi state. The rich, in no way will live better here, by turning it into one. This doesn't benefit the already rich, living in an already wealthy nation. It benefits thugs, living in poor nations, who have never had the prosperity we do. America is the MOST prosperous nation on Earth. As of 2004, 1 in 124 Americans were millionaires. Do you sit in ruch hour traffic? Ride a subway? Go to a concert? There are plenty of times when you are surrounded by hundreds and even thousands of people. Look around and think about that number again. 1 in 124 of those people, on average, have a net worth of at least one million dollars.

That is staggering.

Nazism, is NOT going to take root in the middle of that anytime soon, when the people making and passing the laws, and the heads of our military, are generally going to be among that group.

Heroine WAS around then. Look it up.

Do I win now?

No, you don't, because I said heroin in the street form it is in now. It most certainly was NOT available then.

Agreed, but the crimes committed by druggies ARE illegal already, and they SHOULD be prosecuted for those crimes. They should be in jail or prison for breaking into your home and stealing, or robbing a liquor store or whatever, but NOT for the drug use itself. Make repeat offenders of the SAME crimes pay a higher penalty.

That is a facile workaround of the issue. The state certainly makes the use of certain substances illegal, especially under certain circumstances. For instance, alcohol is not illegal (for consenting adults of age). And Driving is not illegal (for consenting adults of age) yet being under the influence of alcohol while driving is a CRIME. Why? Because it has been shown to be deadly, and a threat to the public safety.

Did you read where I said there needs to be checks and balances? In pressing circumstances, I believe some measures are warranted. Let it be proven that the government misuses this ability before jumping off the deep end over it.

Ah I see, so it's dependent on someone's idea of "necessary". Now you're in my territory.

Seriously Irminsul, some of these cells are discovered and disbanded and their plots broken up, because of this ability. Is the opposite scenario really preferrable in your mind? Dozens or hundreds dying from exploding buildings? To protect what? An extra-marital affair or something else someone has to hide? Show me where this has EVER been an issue. How many terrorist related deaths are worth supposedly protecting someone's ability to buy coke from a drug dealer for personal use, or some guy bopping his secretary and talking to her on the cell phone setting the next rendevous up.

A great man once said "Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security, deserve neither". It's odd, what a floating point your morality is for that one.

Nazism, is NOT going to take root in the middle of that anytime soon, when the people making and pasing the laws, and the heads of our military are generally going to be among that group.

I suggest you read a book called "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. It is a novel about a fascist takeover in the USA. What makes it so chilling is how the smarmy, aw-shucks president Buzz Windrip came to power. Compare with the ascendence of GWB. Sometimes novels are predictions. Fascism, or more particularly corpofascism (thank you Mussolini) is the unholy alliance of big business and government. Nothing has been more glaringly obvious since the conserative takeover than their willingness to be bought by big corporations.

If you want to place your liberty and security in the hands of THAT, then Gods help you.

Heroine WAS around then. Look it up.

Do I win now?

No, you don't, because I said heroin in the street form it is in now. It most certainly was NOT available then.

Oh God. Technicalities. LOL

For instance, alcohol is not illegal (for consenting adults of age). And Driving is not illegal (for consenting adults of age) yet being under the influence of alcohol while driving is a CRIME. Why? Because it has been shown to be deadly, and a threat to the public safety.

Granted, but I think the jury is out on whether drunk driving laws really curtail drunk driving. For example, if it is shown that fatalities decreased over the last 15 years, it is possible that it is due to stiffer drunk driving laws, but it is also possible that it is due to awareness of the issue and a resultant change in behavior, or even due to better safety equiptment on vehicles, like mandatory airbags. And even though, I expected you to bring this up in rebuttle, I thought you may not, because this also backfires on you, because of DUI checkpoints, a clear invasion of privacy, which you claim to be against.

I think the biggest issue on drunk driving, is letting people back out of jail who have murdered others, on suspended or revoked licenses, because they have already been convicted and let out. Chronic offenders seem to do the most harm. Some of these people have been prosecuted 4 or even 5 times for the same damn thing. Lock them away for good at 3 for God's sake.

A great man once said "Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security, deserve neither". It's odd, what a floating point your morality is for that one.

First of all, you didn't do what I asked, which was to post some evidence that it has been misused and that affairs and small time drug dealers have been affected by such practices. Quotes are nice, but facts speak louder. Secondly, my morality doesn't float at all. I don't , in normal circumstances believe in killing other human beings, but I would to defend my family's safety. I am so horrified on a personal level at the idea of taking another's life, that I am often glad I have never been in war and been forced to make that choice. But I KNOW I would make it, if my family's or my neighbor's life depended on it, or if the soldier's life next to me did. So, in a perfect world, it would be nice if things were able to be absolutes, but we don't live in a perfect world. I am personally opposed to killing, but I accept that one day, I may be forced into a situation where it is required. That is not a floating morality. It is morality tempered by logic and evolving circumstances. We are sometimes faced with circumstances where neither choice is ideal, but the better of the two must be determined, exercised and lived with.

If you want to place your liberty and security in the hands of THAT, then Gods help you.

Well God does help me, quite a bit actually. And no, I will not surender my liberty, whether all at once or in baby steps, but lifeless computer software monitoring buzz words on telephone calls and emails, does not begin to approach that scenario.

When every American's home is at threat of being wiretapped and outfitted with video cameras, let's talk. But communications that are not truly in private, but flying across airwaves and cable lines, outside of our homes... I don't know... it is a little debatable whether there is truly an expectation of absolute privacy.

Remember, the original phone lines were party lines, and the operator could easily overhear any conversation. There is also readily available equiptment which allows anyone to intercept cell phone transmissions. There is government involvement in the establishing and regulating of cell phone towers, telephone lines, and satellites used for such communications. So that these conversations are not occuring in the privacy of one's own home exclusively, but the signals are routed thousands of miles sometimes, using federally regulated, and sometimes owned, equiptment, land, etc...

Don't misunderand me, as the above seems worse than what I am saying. Let me regroup...

There is a "reasonable" expectation of privacy, but a limited one. This already occurs through the postal service, where mail is expected to be private, but drug sniffing dogs, and poison sniffing dogs and other equiptment monitors the mail. When something gets a scent, or even appears suspicious, it could then fall under more scrutiny and be opened to check out what's inside. I see the software that looks for buzz words, to be very similar in nature, where only something falling under suspicion is examined in more detail

When and if you can prove that this safety measure is found to be abused, then you and I would be in agreement. Until then, I think you have to concede my point, or also tell me that bomb sniffing dogs, and metal detectors and x-ray machines are also wrong. Otherwise, you must admit that in the interest of public safety, certain so-called invasions into our privacy in a limited manner, are warranted and acceptable. As is the case in airports and the postal service.

fc

A great man once said "Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security, deserve neither". It's odd, what a floating point your morality is for that one.


I suggest you read a book called "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. It is a novel about a fascist takeover in the USA. What makes it so chilling is how the smarmy, aw-shucks president Buzz Windrip came to power. Compare with the ascendence of GWB. Sometimes novels are predictions. Fascism, or more particularly corpofascism (thank you Mussolini) is the unholy alliance of big business and government. Nothing has been more glaringly obvious since the conserative takeover than their willingness to be bought by big corporations.

If you want to place your liberty and security in the hands of THAT, then Gods help you.

I like how you said "Gods" plural.

Craig, very impressive! You "get it"..you should wear that fact like a badge of honor my friend, very few people do "get it".

I wouldnt be so sure of that, look at his last couple of posts.

Are you against x-rays in airports?

That is more of an invasion of privacy than software that picks up on key words. Don't you think? After all, the x-rays check EVERYTHING whereas the software is selective.

To me, the software is not much different than drug sniffing dogs, and certainly even less than x-raying luggage in airports.

Are x-rays in airports reasonable? Yes or no.

If not, what do you propose instead?

I believe in balance. Extremism of any kind or for any purpose is almost always wrong and dangerous.

fc

fc

Craig, I am only going to say the following in reference to drugs and legalization of them:

I have a very sick mother, she has Lupus, and none of you can debate me for any reason in that field because I will wrap your head around a pole (Trust me on that one), metaphorically speaking of course. She is a very sick woman, and I watch it every day of my life... She needs pain medicines to survive, but I know if they were readily available over the counter, she might take too many because she is in such horrible pain. So sadly, very sadly, she has to endure some of it as to keep her from overloading her body. Now you people can go on and talk about how drugs should be legal all you want, and talk about your stupid FAQ’s all you want - I do not give a flying f*ck. I have a sick mother and I understand what drugs do to you, I know how it works, I am a f*cking medical-transcription, I study medicine, I think I know. So basically my belief system on not legalizing them holds firm from experience of watching what could happen to someone if they were legal. Also, do not one of you dare, I mean it, dare, start that “She should be in control of her own body,” crap. No one say a word about that. My mother means more to me than anything in the world, the only reason I have brought her up is as an example.

So, you guys can take that "Let's legalize drugs," hippie jargon, and keep it to yourselves. Do I sound pissed? I am. Also, please do not talk about how I was raised, and the differences, and pros and cons... I am happy with how I was raised. Also, the crap about I must be very religious... That is crap too, as I said before. My family is not very religious, but we do hold firm to certain values and morals, and beliefs. We are a very wise family, we are not stupid people.

Now on a more civilized level:

I am going to go onto something else you brought up... Wire tapping and keyword snatching to find dangers hidden in the country. I agree with you, it should be there to an extent. It is not going to hurt anyone, as you said it is like a metal detector, only when the right substance is sensed does the bell ring.

I do not think the government is going around listening to phone conversations and caring if you and your wife are going out to supper, they could care less. They are looking for you to say something that is odd, and if they have tapped your phone chances are there is great reason they did so. They are not going to tap you and me, we have no ties into anything that appears dangerous.

What is the difference between the FBI tapping phones for drugs and the rest of the intelligence agencies tapping phones for terrorist? All and all it makes us safer. As long as they are not rigging every system we have and listening to our conversations, and then talking about it to their buddies, I do not think we should care.

So yes, that kind of thing can be done to an extent, I will agree with that.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

You insist on just talking about tapping phones, that is the least of my problem. How about your right to a lawyer, or a trial, or the fact that you can be removed from society and tortured indefinitely, or the confiscation of our guns, or all of the other rights we have lost due to the Patriot Act .

Oh hell no. In it's present form it is not acceptable to me. It has been revised from it's inception and weakened to some degree, but it has not gone far enough. It needs to be revised further, and it SHOULD NOT be made permanent. Things like this should be revisited often, to insure it is not being abused, and that it is still necessary or serving a useful purpose. What is going on in Guantanamo for example is disgraceful.

Too often, laws are changed for a specific purpose, only to be kept past the serving of that purpose, then it becomes an albatross arounf our necks.

That is precisely why we still have income tax, which was instituted first in the 1800's to pay for the civil war effort. The rate at that time was only 3% and even that was found to be unconstitutional later. How do you tax work? It should be illegal. Salary is effectively a TRADE for services. Taxes where commerce are concerned are supposed to be based on PROFIT. In other words, I pay 10 bucks for an item and sell it in my store for 15 bucks, I have made a 5 buck profit and this is taxable. Saleries however are basically an equal trade, your work, in exchange for the payment. There is no true PROFIT occurring in that scenario. My work is deemed to be worth $15 an hour, for example, and I work for you for 2 hours, and I am payed $30. How am I taxed on this? Was I overpayed for my work, and it was really only worth $10 dollars an hour?

There is an equitable and equal trade going on here. Value for value. Income should not be taxed. It is a fraud perpetuated on the public.

My contention is this:
Too much power to the right side of the political spectrum can lead to a Nazie style state. History proves this over and over.
Too much power to the left side of the political spectrum can lead to a nanny state (thats Nazie spelled backwards) history also proves this.
Its going on in merry old England right now where people are being imprisoned for defending there homes and family from armed criminals and the Goverment is paying damage awards to the criminals.
As I and Craig have said "Must be check and balance."
Did anyone read Fishermans post? The only thing I could add to what Bob said would be capital punishment not ten years in prison waiting but ten men to the gallows. we would not have gangs running prisons if the law was inforced. GA I'm sorry bout your mom dude but I see more persciption drug addicts in the hospital than you can imagine. In the case where you really need that med you rarely see true addiction. And that is coming from the guy pushing that last dose IV ms04 so someone can relax enough to die in peace. Not just reading about it. There is always another Dr. willing to write another Rx especially in the world of pain mgmt. Persciption drug use and availability is a totally different subject. from illicit drug use. As is Rx use and Rx abuse Big difference between want and need.

Sanshouheil, yeah, I know what you mean. Illicit drugs and prescription are different, but still, they are all addicting, and there is no need to start making illicit drugs legal on top of prescription drugs. I just think it would go right off the hinges. This whole damn world would go up in flames.

Now, I was reading an article that agrees with me (And it had more posts than this one debating the subject, lol). That article made a good point... Wouldn't it be very costly to the economy to make them legal? Think about it for a second, if it was legal we would need to make distributors in this country of it... And that would require growing of different plants, and taking up more land, and so on and so forth. I would think that would just be more costly than anything... Now you could argue that they would make money off of it, but if it was profiting like that then that would mean people are using them even more than they are now. At least I would think so.

*Shrugs.*

Well, I do not see the drug laws changing anytime soon. So, I have nothing to worry about, that is for sure. If I am wrong on that, someone feel free to correct me.

Peace, GuitarAnatomy.

Also, do not one of you dare, I mean it, dare, start that “She should be in control of her own body,” crap.

First of all, I am very sorry about your mother's circumstances.

Some people are unable to care for themselves or make proper decisions. That's what doctors are for. That's what family is for too.

So, you guys can take that "Let's legalize drugs," hippie jargon, and keep it to yourselves. Do I sound pissed? I am.

Yeah, because as I said, your moral outrage has blinded you to reality. How about someone saying "You can keep that atheistic anti-God jargon to yourselves!" Should it be illegal to not believe in God, simply because you and I believe there is a God? I think rejecting God is immoral, shoudn't we then criminalize it? It is not a less important issue than drugs are, for those who believe in God. With drugs you may kill yourself with an accidental overdose. Many believers in God (I'm not among them) believe however that your soul will burn in hell for eternity if you reject God. Isn't burning in hell for eternity a little more serious than a drug overdose that merely kills the body? But you know damn well, that you cannot legislate THAT morality. Why is it such a stretch for you to see it is much the same thing for recreational drugs?

Also, please do not talk about how I was raised, and the differences, and pros and cons... I am happy with how I was raised.

I said there was nothing wrong with home schooling didn't I? I was discussing it's merits as an intellectual exercise. Also, I am trying to teach you something VERY valuable about life, that there are pros and cons to almost everything in life, so you can get away from being too confined in black and white thinking and absolutes. There ARE absolutes in life, but home schooling is not among them. I am trying to teach you to have more critical thought in life, as you will find much more truth as a result, and be deceived far less. I find you to be a bright, respectful kid with a good heart. (I am old enough to see you as a kid still. LOL) But your youthful enthusiasm is not yet tempered with personal experience. You haven't lived long enough for this to occur. I am giving you food for thought, to hopefully give you another point of view to consider, and potentially help you later in life, to find your way, and make the right path for yourself in life. You are in your 20's. Trust me on this, you will be a different person in your 30's, and different still in your 40's etc... We are all works in progress. We evolve, change and hopefully grow. If who you are has not been revised to some degree as you get older, it would indicate you haven't learned anything in life, because of a certainty, no 20 year old has it ALL figured out yet, with nothing left to learn. If I didn't care, I wouldn't even make the effort.

Also, the crap about I must be very religious... That is crap too, as I said before. My family is not very religious, but we do hold firm to certain values and morals, and beliefs. We are a very wise family, we are not stupid people.

Yes, you told me that your family was not very religious. I believed you. There is nothing inherently wrong with being very religious anyway. It was not meant as an insult. You shouldn't have taken it that way. I have grown up in alternately, very religious circumstances and fairly permissive circumstances. I understand, in a personal way, the merits and pitfalls of both.

I think the mere fact that your mother is so ill, means that you have more time with her, in a home schooling situation. For that reason alone, it is probably a better choice for your personal situation. I also think that your mother loves you alot, to seek to protect you, in choosing home schooling. She deserves praise for that. I was not criticizing your particular situation or your parent's decision in choosing that option. What I was trying to do, was help you not necessarily assume that it will be the best thing for your own children when you have them. That you didn't suddenly "institutionalize" it as ALWAYS the right choice for your descendants forevermore. It clearly was the right choice for you, for many reasons, but that does not mean it will be the right thing for your own children. If the good heart you seem to possess, is passed down to your own children, it would be a shame if you chose to deprive other children of learning from their example. I am sure as well, that with all the disobedient and disrespectful children most teachers have to deal with these days, it would also be a joy, for them to teach the kind of children you would likely raise.

Sometimes I have felt that the world is so wicked, that I would never want to bring a child into it. Wiser minds however, have convinced me of this argument "Who will future generations learn from?"

The world needs people with good and sacrificial hearts, to help guide others toward the path of goodness and decency, whether as leaders or merely as good examples of how to find meaning in life and how to help others.

The world needs more people like that NOW, and it will certainly need them in future generations. It would be rather selfish of me, to abandon hope for the world, and not to try and leave a legacy of goodness behind, that could benefit future generations. God hasn't given up on us, it would be wrong of me to help make His hope for us misplaced.

fc

So you think drugs should be illegal because they are dangerous. Well lollipops are dangerous too, many people have died from getting them lodged in their throat, should we make those illegal as well? How about motorcycles, very dangerous, lots of people have been injured and killed on them, should we make those illegal. It's called freedom, this may be a new concept to you. No matter how dangerous something is for myself, I as a free person should have the right to do it even if you think its wrong, as long as I do not infringe on anyone elses rights in the process of my "dangerous" activity.