ParanoiA

That's a good article, John. I haven't heard Rush's take on it yet, but I'm sure it's similar to Goode and all these jokers that seem to have little logic other than appeals to tradition to support this position. An appeal to tradition is pathetic. This is just as mindless as when my co-workers reply to questions on method with "we've always done it that way". That's an answer? We've always done it that way? We've always used a bible? We've always had christian politicians so...?? When you hear words like "traditional amercian values" - or hell, any argument with the root word "tradition" used to support its validity - you know right of the bat it's bullshit. It's old white men scared of change. That's all. Scared of losing their precious status - which is mainly just in their heads in the first place.

Well, now that I know what's doing it I can just scroll it off of the screen. For a few weeks there I had no idea and was mildly suspicious of being monitored by IT. But then I noticed it at home too and decided that's just paranoia...

I'm not sure. But I'm actually more outraged at the idea that Israel would allow such policies as segregation by sex ( of any kind for that matter ) to exist in this day and age. And this isn't the first time I've run across some kind of -ism related to Israel. From what I understand, there's something about citizenship and race and land ownership or something similar, that smacks of racism.

Am I the only one scratching my head on what feelings or views were shared with the teacher, that weren't sexual, but ended up with a teacher going to the principal? Y-S, what did you say? What exactly took place? Your posts are quite vague on the matter so I find it difficult to comment on how appropriate or inappropriate her reaction was/is. I doubt she did the wrong thing, though. Maybe it doesn't matter and I'm just being nosey. I would certainly approach it business as usual. The best way to get past stuff like this is just to get past it. Ask questions, listen to the answers, behave naturally without "going there". The more you show it isn't a big deal to you, the less it will be a big deal to her - the less it will be a deal.

I just ran across this story... Geez, how disgusting. Anyone have the scoop on sex segregated buses in Israel? Any other exclusionary prejudice policies going on in Israel? I can't believe this kind of thing still goes on in a civilized, developed country like Israel.

Interesting. I'm surprised you haven't weighed in on the Hybrid Marijuana thread.

Just so you know, I don't use Firefox. I'm just using plain jane IE...

I've noticed an annoying problem that just started ever since the SFN logo was updated with the falling snow effect. I didn't realize it had anything to do with it until now. But in the edit box, my cursor starts flickering as I scroll the SFN logo into view and completely disappears once it's fully in view. As soon as I scroll it off the screen, my cursor reappears and blinks normally. It's as if the effect is causing "cursor blinkage overload"... Anybody know how to fix that?

How did you know?

But how do you know plants don't have feelings? We didn't know there was such thing as wave-particle duality until recent. Who knows what we're likely to discover as we get to know what's going on further into the microscopic world - which you know operates much differently than our relevant world. And why do living things have to have feelings to get your moral consideration? That seems an odd place to drive a wedge. If you have feelings, you're spared. Never mind what you contribute to the planet and the rest of the animal kingdom. That will earn you no merit. Just whether or not you have feelings - which are really just a practical application. Because fire hurts, we know to get away from it. Because it feels cold, we look for warmth. So you've taken a pragmatic tool of physiological negotiation and decided to build it into your moral model as the dividing line between what is ok to kill and what isn't. Weird. What if all the humans on the planet became vegans? Suddenly billions of people are decending on plant life, consuming quantities never before seen in this globe's history? Will there be enough to maintain oxygen levels? What about the other dozens of things that plants do for us that I have no idea about? I'm just curious. You're the smartest vegan I know, so I figure you're the best to ask.

Yes, this is correct. It would be quite irresponsible not to care for your offspring properly. Well, you might disagree, but I don't see it that way at all. Since I view driving vehicles as a dangerous activity - regardless of capacity of judgement - then I do not see it as predicted downstream behavior. Same with operating weapons and machinery. These things should be illegal to do under any drug, no matter the drug's legal status. And while I might come off very tolerant about personal freedoms, I'm quite intolerant when it comes to violating other's rights. Anyone caught driving under the influence of anything ought to lose their license and serve jail time. We should not be lax about this in the least. This is attempted murder to me. So yeah, there's a line...

Here's the source on the drug war facts comparison between the US and the Netherlands. I've actually read this before, years ago, but I don't remember where it was. There was a bit about our drug Czar comparing our homocide rate to theirs and concluding it was higher in Holland. Later it was proven that he apparently added the statistics for their "attempted" murder, or something similar, to the homocide rate. The homocide rate in Holland is much lower, by 4 or 5 times. If I can find that article, I'll update this post with that link too. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

Oh he's taking some well deserved heat on it alright... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237987,00.html

Ok, fair enough. They basically admit it themselves. But we didn't have that before, that's why I was questioning it. On a side note, I noticed Richard Nadler lives in Overland Park, Kansas - which is about 30 mins from me. This is just another reason why I'll never live in Kansas.

But I usually leave once the dope is gone...

And the problem is? You're damn right I want my drug of choice to be cheaper and not carry the risk of imprisonment, black market empowerment, wasting precious crime prevention resources, not to mention emboldening the position of Alcohol being the only legal alternative - a murderer of thousands every year. Yes, I want the more sensible intoxicant to be legal. They do that with Alcohol? Are they arguing about money-grubbing companies willing to kill their own addicted customers to show a profit? Pot doesn't kill people, so I doubt that conversation would take place.

I would say that operating machinery, weapons, - any activity that endangers the lives of people regardless of state of mind - should obviously be illegal under the influence of any substance - legal or not. Prescriptions are such a thing. I can take pain pills legally, but I'm not supposed to operate machinery or drive under the influence of it. But being responsible for your children is a sorry excuse to refrain someone from enjoying themselves. My parents are quite well rounded folk, and every christmas was the family party - most of the adults were drunk. Not puking and falling on each other, just getting loud, laughing, having a good time. I see no need for perfect judgement capacity at all times. I don't agree with connect-the-dots legislation. Someone does drugs, then they MIGHT steal to get more - so outlaw them. Someone gets drunk, then they MIGHT do something stupid - so outlaw it. That's indirect, connect-the-dots crap and lumps everyone into the same category and assumes a chain reaction of behavior that only a small percentage will validate.

Oh man. I'm sorry but this is blatant elitist conceit. I like you tree, so please don't get too pissed at me, but it really is conceited to hold such a perspective. This is the mentality that drives the liberal "I know what's best for you" approach to government. The "we are the enlightened ones" attitude. That's where this ammoral incrementalist legislation comes from in the first place. I vehemently dispise it. You have no right to grant yourself "enlightenment" over everybody else in terms of legislation and order. You're right, I did misunderstand. But my point still stands in that there are alot of things that are legal and are NOT safe, sensible and reasonable. The government is not responsible for any stupid thing you do. True, at first any legislation decriminalizing dope will be answered with hoots and hollers and initial interest will spike some - but will go away very quickly. Take a look at Holland's drug problems before and after legalization. Our own drug Czar had to misrepresent the facts just to keep from looking like complete idiots in the face of their new drug structure. ( I'll source that when I get back from lunch - I'm starving...and no I didn't smoke anything...)

Thank you. That was my point. Sisyphus said so...not the ad. If sisyphus didn't say that, no one would have thought it. So, the question is, Sisyphus, how do you know it's targeting black voters? Did the ad say this? Did CNN say this? Did the DNC say this? Any republicans say this? Foxnews? Edit: After re-reading, I noticed the magazine that featured this ad said this. Hmm...so now Harper's mag is qualified to label the intent of a political ad? See, it's only funny and disturbing when you buy the initial unchallenged suggestion that it targets black voters.

Ok, now you're being intellectually dishonest. What is scientific about these statements of yours? All of these are beliefs and opinions of yours. Where's the source for your claims? I wouldn't expect any, because we're not arguing any facts here, just philosophical opinions and beliefs. When I bring up a fact to use for this discussion, I'll source it.

So what? You are not thinking this out very carefully. You are promoting behavioral legislation because some people are too stupid? I have to do without basic freedoms because some people are susceptible? Joe Blow has to sit in prison because of your lack of faith in people? You can't really be serious. Freedom only for the lowest common denominator? If you follow your logic to its ends you're going to regulate every moment of everyone's lives. If someone eats fatty food in front of someone else, they could be very impressionable and start eating fatty foods themselves. We both know fatty foods are bad for you, but some people are susceptable and can't be expected to suffer for this susceptability - so let's outlaw the eating of unhealthy foods in public. I could go on and on. But that's silly isn't it? But I'm arguing that the government's motivation is moral, not protection. If the government was trying to protect us then Alcohol wouldn't be legal would it? You said we all know weed is safer - you specifically mentioned legislators and politicians so how could they be making it illegal for protection? Besides, this whole paragraph of mine that you're chopping up is all about the concept of the government being assigned "legitimator" - not necessarily in the context of just drugs, but society's insistance that the government's laws reflect our ideas of morality. Do you understand what I'm saying? You might re-read that before you go on, because I think you're slightly misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm emotive about people rotting in prison for society's sick ideas of legislating morality. I see no difference between this an the Salem witch trials. History will later reflect our cruelty, hypocrisy and shame. They will shake their heads at us the way we shake our heads about our ancestor's backward assed views. Again, this in support to the theme of government being deemed the great legitimator by society due to incremental ammoral legislation. This is an important point, because people use this argument alot - "if we legalize it then everyone will start doing it...". But the government is not supposed to be your reference for right and wrong - only legal versus illegal. The government also has deemed prostitution legal in Nevada. Are they saying it's perfectly ok for all women in Nevada to whore themselves? Legally, yes. Morally - that's up to you. The government isn't "saying" anything, it's just legal. Understand the difference yet? So, you can't use the argument that "everyone will think it's ok". Sure they will, legally - not morally.

Saw this story this morning. Good controversial letter from Rep. Goode to his constituents:

Another pont I like to make, is that while we still have murder, rape and theft - violent crimes - we don't have the resources to be diverting to victimless, behavioral crime. I work in a city where the crime rate is 440 - that's 440 victims per 100,000 people. Our murder count just topped 100 for the year - and that's just the metro area. That fact we even have a measurement system for crime tells me no one is trying to eliminate it. Our goal should be zero. Realistic or not, our goal should be no violent crime at all. So, when you can get a better handle on murder, rape, assault, molestation...then we can talk about adding to the list. We have no business busting drug runners when we could have used those resources ethically and busted another child rapist instead.

Oh, absolutely. It is the parents job to forcibly guide and mold their children into productive members of society. Not the government. Not at all. Rape produces a victim. Any behavior that directly harms the person or property of another should not be tolerated. That's fundamental to law and order. I do support forcibly requiring all citizens, regardless of age, sex...etc not to harm the person or property of another. Smoking dope is victimless. Just like prostitution, gambling, smoking... It's not a claim, it's a belief. I said that I believe this. I also believe that most people believe it too. But like I said, it doesn't matter. The fact the I choose to want to do it is reason enough. But you had a problem with Gutz's argument because you thought he was trying to say it's "safe" when he compared it to Alcohol, when in my opinion, it looked as if he was just trying to say it's "safer" than what is already legal. Also, not everybody knows that. Most people don't agree with that. This logic driven forum isn't going to have too many of those people, because most folks in here think for themselves. Ah, yes the great legitimator known as the government. Why do you look to the government to tell you what is right and wrong? Since when is the government my mom and dad? No one should be looking at legislation to decide what is good and bad. We are free to do a lot of stupid things - like eating 100 twinkies in one sitting. There are no laws stopping you from drinking bleach for breakfast. The government decides what is right and wrong legally, not morally. Morals are subjective. See this is the crux of losing our freedoms in this country. Somewhere down the line we started passing laws to mirror what the majority feels is righteous. Any behavior the majority doesn't like, they just pass laws to stop it - regardless of whether or not there are any victims, regardless of their own personal views on success and life. The government became the great legitimator. And now we're held hostage by it. We let people rot in prison - PRISON - for growing a plant the majority doesn't like. Do you realize that? Does that register? Someone's dad, someone's brother, a working man with a wife and kids that depended on him - torn apart and left to a life of poverty and broken family ties - a domestic tragedy - all because we don't agree with him growing a kind of plant?? That's insane. That's oppressive. That's sick and anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves. How dare you judge someone to the point you literally shatter their life because they won't conform to your ideas of morallity? Especially when their behavior doesn't effect you. People who are passed out from alcohol are physically incapacitated. You can kick them, strip them, do whatever you want to them and they will not regain conciousness until the intoxication wears off - for hours. This is how women get gang raped and don't know it until they wake up in the morning naked, sticky, alone, with a room full of passed out half-naked guys. People who are passed out from cannibas - which I've only witnessed a couple of times compared to literally dozens of passed out drunks - aren't really passed out. You can shake them and they wake right up. They're just asleep. Weed doesn't effect you like alcohol. Alcohol is a very strong intoxication - you lose control of your senses and they cannot be regained by shear will. Your motor skills are completely helpless to the poison. Cannibas is a far more mild intoxication. And even after heavy, heavy dosage you still have complete control of your body. You don't stumble, and crawl and puke in the toilet promising god you'll never do this again. I've never seen anyone lose control of themselves in any capacity on pot - never. That's not to say it isn't possible, but after 20 years of personal experience, a ton of parties, from adolesence to adulthood, from irresponsibility to disciplined enlightenment, I've never been nor seen anyone else incapacitated from pot. Soak that statement in for a moment. I've smoked a lot, and I mean a LOT of pot, some great, some so-so, some laced even. It's not scientific or clinical, but it's convincing enough to at least say it doesn't impair your judgement or physical control to the extent that alcohol does. Ok, are you wanting the pictures? I don't have those. But apparently her and Paris have been partying pretty heavy, to the point Ms Hilton had to carry Brittany out of some of these clubs. So, I'm assuming this lead to Panti-gate. You all haven't heard this story yet?

Funny...but where did you get the idea they're talking about black people?