Capitalism vs Socialism, Right-wing vs Left-wing politics

[Delta1212]

I'm going to withdraw to save myself some grief. I recognize that there are some pretty damning limits to my wits, and that I'm dealing with much smarter people here. I'm going to wave my white flag, and cop out of this one while the gettin' is still good. After all, this whole thing got started after me expressing my beliefs against socialism. I'm out-classed, you guys win. Congratulations.

I'd rather wait for you to research, read and digest. I don't expect anyone to have instant answers to every question. I don't have the answer to every possible question and I'm not going to hold anyone else to a standard that I can't hold myself to, especially not when I don't think it's a realistic standard in any case.

 

I just try to remember that any time I have to look up rebuttals to a point, it means I've uncovered a gap in my knowledge and I may need to revise some of my opinions in light of new information and that I shouldn't just accept whatever the first explanation I find that agrees with the opinion I already held.

[iNow]

[Willie71]

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on.

 

I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality.

 

Here's just a small sample of the pew data:

 

People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery:

 

Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people)

Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people)

Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people)

 

Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people

 

People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion:

 

Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people)

Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people)

Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people)

Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people)

 

Total - Roughly 238,358,908

 

And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling.

 

So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented.

I'm sure you are also aware that moderate Muslims in the western world are more tolerant of homosexuals and gay marriage than comparable Christians?

 

I'm sure you are aware that right wing terrorist attacks in the western world (often Christians) are far more frequent than Islamic attacks?

 

I typically don't go for the "....but the other guys are worse." argument, but we are comparing western values to supposed Islamic values. The reality is the patriot groups and the Islamic terrorist's are such a small problem in the western world that we should be much more worried about lightning strikes.

 

Keeping people fearful as well as the divide and conquer technique keeps people from organizing themselves to focus on the real injustices that we face, such as Americans being left with Clinton vs. Trump.

 

On the OP, most successful economies are mixed economies. As already noted, some services need to focus on quality over cost, because of vulnerabilities, and others do better with competition. Corporatism creates massive wealth inequality, similar to fascism, which is corporatism plus nationalism. Monopolies are lousy, and on the other extreme, complete government control over the economy doesn't work very well either. There are many examples of successful mixed economies. There are no examples that I am aware of with successful supply side economies, nor successful government controlled economies.

 

 

Do you have any polling on how many Christians believe the bible's/God's laws supersede man's laws. You might believe the US is a Theocracy looking at those numbers. Sharia law is not any more scary than Leviticus.

[Tampitump]

Boy, I guess you're right iNow. I am stupid. Everyone here seems to think so. Irrational.....I hold positions I don't fully understand.....can't make logical arguments.....arrive at conclusions unscientifically on insufficient evidence.....

[iNow]

So, how about instead of lashing out, you defend your position, make a quality argument, and prove us all wrong?

 

Nobody here cares about how you look or how well you're educated. All that matters is the quality of your argument and your ability to adequately defend and support it with evidence.

 

Seriously... Think of it as good practice for that PhD you say you want so badly. If you can't handle us, I promise you can't handle the review board.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by iNow

[Tampitump]

Why don't you acknowledge the evidence when I present it, iNow? At least acknowledge that something which constitutes a submission of evidence has been put on the table by me.

 

I just gave you Pew numbers from three Muslim-majority countries in their support for barbaric laws. The thing I'm arguing against is not Islamic fundamentalism, ISIS, or fringe groups within the Muslim world. I'm arguing against the mainstream Islamic community in the middle east. These beliefs are clearly mainstream when you look at the numbers of people who support sharia law, are in favor killing apostates, are in favor of stoning adulterers, etc. This is purely medieval barbarism that is repudiated by our mainstream in west and you know it. The only Christians who advocate this in the west are fringe groups who are repudiated heavily by our mainstream. Nobody cares about Dominionist Christians because they are irrelevant, and on the fringe of our society. Our mainstream discourse repudiates the Westboro people, and other people like them. When these people are polled in Muslim-majority countries, they say flat out "yes, I do think apostates should be put to death," "Yes, I do think adulterers should be stoned," "Yes, I do think homosexuals should be put to death," etc etc etc..... I don't know, and have never met a single Christian in my life who said they wanted the death penalty for adultery, or apostasy, or homosexuality, and 99.999% of the people I've ever known or met in my life have been the most devout Christians of the Bible Belt you could ever meet. The only thing I'm saying is that there is a clear warrant for criticism of mainstream Islam here. There is a legitimate need to be worried about this religion (along with these interpretations and values) propagating into western society. My objection is when liberals like Hillary Clinton use the word "Islamophobe" to slap the "bigot" label on people who even suggest that there are concerns here. She just wants to sit up there with her elitist, liberal buddies with the utmost sanctimony and tout her moral-superiority for being so "worldy" and "enlightened", when in reality she is throwing all the Muslim victims of Islamic ideology under the bus in the name of political correctness.

 

I also keep getting slapped with the accusation that I'm painting all muslims equally, and therefore I'm being a bigot. Nowhere did I ever suggest or imply that all muslims are bad people. In fact, I've said several times that I'm criticizing the idea, and how it is popularly viewed in the Muslim world. But instead of addressing it, everyone ignores large parts of what I say, and continue to ask where my evidence is, and ignore the times when I do make good arguments, make positive statements, and present good reasons. I think everyone who has conversed with me in these two threads today should be ashamed of themselves. You've ignored evidence, and have refused to recognize true threats that face the world you live in. If commercial jets crashed into the tallest buildings in five US cities tomorrow, and the leaders of all Islamic countries rejoiced in it, all of you would probably still be sitting here saying "where's your evidence man", "you can't even make a good argument man".....

 

There comes a point where you're no longer using the scientific method, you're just avoiding the truth. There is high standards of evidence, then there is just denial of evidence. There is need to be alarmed by this religion and the large fundamental support for its prescriptions in the Muslim world and you all KNOW IT.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tampitump

[iNow]

Now...Try that experiment I suggested. Find and replace Muslim with black or female and read it again

[Willie71]

Why don't you acknowledge the evidence when I present it, iNow? At least acknowledge that something which constitutes a submission of evidence has been put on the table by me.

 

I just gave you Pew numbers from three Muslim-majority countries in their support for barbaric laws. The thing I'm arguing against is not Islamic fundamentalism, ISIS, or fringe groups within the Muslim world. I'm arguing against the mainstream Islamic community in the middle east. These beliefs are clearly mainstream when you look at the numbers of people who support sharia law, are in favor killing apostates, are in favor of stoning adulterers, etc. This is purely medieval barbarism that is repudiated by our mainstream in west and you know it. The only Christians who advocate this in the west are fringe groups who are repudiated heavily by our mainstream. Nobody cares about Dominionist Christians because they are irrelevant, and on the fringe of our society. Our mainstream discourse repudiates the Westboro people, and other people like them. When these people are polled in Muslim-majority countries, they say flat out "yes, I do think apostates should be put to death," "Yes, I do think adulterers should be stoned," "Yes, I do think homosexuals should be put to death," etc etc etc..... I don't know, and have never met a single Christian in my life who said they wanted the death penalty for adultery, or apostasy, or homosexuality, and 99.999% of the people I've ever known or met in my life have been the most devout Christians of the Bible Belt you could ever meet. The only thing I'm saying is that there is a clear warrant for criticism of mainstream Islam here. There is a legitimate need to be worried about this religion (along with these interpretations and values) propagating into western society. My objection is when liberals like Hillary Clinton use the word "Islamophobe" to slap the "bigot" label on people who even suggest that there are concerns here. She just wants to sit up there with her elitist, liberal buddies with the utmost sanctimony and tout her moral-superiority for being so "worldy" and "enlightened", when in reality she is throwing all the Muslim victims of Islamic ideology under the bus in the name of political correctness.

 

I also keep getting slapped with the accusation that I'm painting all muslims equally, and therefore I'm being a bigot. Nowhere did I ever suggest or imply that all muslims are bad people. In fact, I've said several times that I'm criticizing the idea, and how it is popularly viewed in the Muslim world. But instead of addressing it, everyone ignores large parts of what I say, and continue to ask where my evidence is, and ignore the times when I do make good arguments, make positive statements, and present good reasons. I think everyone who has conversed with me in these two threads today should be ashamed of themselves. You've ignored evidence, and have refused to recognize true threats that face the world you live in. If commercial jets crashed into the tallest buildings in five US cities tomorrow, and the leaders of all Islamic countries rejoiced in it, all of you would probably still be sitting here saying "where's your evidence man", "you can't even make a good argument man".....

You realize the people leaving the Middle East to come to western countries are RUNNING AWAY FROM the fundamentalism, right?

 

You claim to know what mainstream Islam is about, but you haven't read the Qoran. This is puzzling. As I said, I think all these fairy tales are harmful, but singling one out is problematic. There are a lot of Muslims in my area. None of them live by sharia law. Women have jobs and use birth control. How do you explain that?

 

Your evidence is a pew research poll of middle eastern countries. Have you read the description of the polling, and what the numbers mean? The questions were likely to result in an overrepresentation of pro fundamentalist endorsements for several obvious reasons. The most glaring problem is the issue of endorsing an idea is different from acting on it. Your Christian friends are a prime example. Ask then if God's law supersedes man's law, and most will say yes, because that is what they were indoctrinated with. Yet they wouldn't stone adulterers.

 

You must be aware that the Middle East was much more secular a few decades ago, until western forces overthrew secular governments to get cheaper access to oil, followed by Reagan propping up.Wahabbists in the 80's to "fight communism." The extremism you see today was finally brought to fruition with Bush II's crusade toppling any stability that might have existed in the Middle East. I'm not excusing the garbage that happens, but we doused the embers in gasoline and took a blow torch to it, with predictable results.

 

Just a suggestion. You have made some strong statements about how you hold the truth regarding Islam that everyone else doesn't get. There are many extremely well read and knowledgeable people here. The wealth of information you could learn from these people for free is unprecidented. I belong to a few forums, but this one is the classiest and most evidence informed forum on the web, in my honest opinion. I am no expert on the Middle East, but am much better informed than what you are currently referencing. I lost respect for Sam Harris when he became a neocon on Islam. He is very well informed on a lot if issues, but it seems he saw the dollar signs and sold out on this topic. There is big money in Islamic fear mongering. He totally lacks knowledge of the history, or the nuance in the situation. Totally below what he brought to the table previously.

[Tampitump]

Now...Try that experiment I suggested. Find and replace Muslim with black or female and read it again

I'm not talking about MUSLIMS. I'm talking about MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR ISLAMIC BARBARISM. I'm criticizing the idea, not the people. If it were a heterosexual, white, male from Kentucky, he would be equally under my criticism radar, and it would apply to him. Have I made that CLEAR? I've clearly stated that the people who are affected by this idology the most are Muslims themselves. I wish to free them (and the rest of the world) of their ideology, not to ban them from our society. I believe in criticizing the religion and the beliefs. I WANT EVERYONE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'VE SAID THIS BECAUSE I'VE PROBABLY SAID THIS FIVE TIMES NOW IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY AND IT STILL KEEPS COMING BACK AS AN ASSERTION THAT I'M BEING BIGOTED AGAINST MUSLIM PEOPLE. No more accusations of bigotry. NONE. There is no bigotry here. I'm the furthest thing from a bigot.

 

You do realize that a Muslim is merely a label for someone who subscribes to the belief set right? If it were an alien from the Andromeda Galaxy who subscribed to it, that alien would be a Muslim.If it were a white guy fro Ireland, he'd be a muslim. It does not mean "brown skinned, Arab person". If I believed in Islam, I'd be a Muslim. It's not a race, not an ethnicity, not a nationality. Its a label applied to people who believe in the religion. Its like calling someone a vegan of feminist. People who subscribe to the ideology. I can think that they, as vegans of feminists, are irrational without thinking that they, as overall human beings are.

What is my argument? Tell me what my argument is?

[Willie71]

Your argument is that the idea of Islam is dangerous. What you miss is there is no idea of Islam. It's a red herring. Islam is a diverse, dynamic, multifaceted belief system with multiple expressions.

 

Do you understand why the idea of Islam is nonsensical? We all agree that a literal interpretation of the qoran is dangerous. You are arguing all Islam is like this. That is an unsupportable position.

[Delta1212]

For the record, I sit between two Muslim people at work, both practicing. One is my boss, who does not wear a head covering, has a nose piercing, fasts for Ramadan, organizes most of our after-work happy hours and karaoke nights, is married to a former rock musician and takes off work for Eid to go to her mosque.

 

She is, in effect, no different from most Christians or Jews that I know. And I work in Manhattan, so we're talking about Northeast Christians here, not Bible Belt Christians.

 

And this is where I run into a rather major disconnect with much of the recent rhetoric. The problem that we have is not with any of the Muslims that I know, which means that it is not with "Muslims." The problem we have is with a particular group of people in a politically volatile region of the word who espouse a political ideology that uses Islam as a delivery system.

 

Religious people, in my experience, tend to use religion to justify whatever it was that they were going to do anyway. I don't know many religious people who do things that they genuinely think are atrocities simply because their religion tells them to. Most of them have a personal justification for why the things they do are necessary or justified and then are able to fill in the blanks as necessary with the religious justification.

 

While it is true that religion can play a part in helping determine what you believe to be right and wrong, the overriding factor in that process is culture, of which religion is just a part, and a part that tends to adapt itself in noticeable ways to fit the wider culture of a people or area.

 

There is a particular cultural setthat has grown up in the turmoil of the Middle East and which does pose a geopolitical challenge that the world needs to tackle, but the fact that a single aspect of that culture, one that, admittedly, that culture defines as an important element, but a single aspect nonetheless, has been selected as the defining element of the problem means that a great many people who shared that characteristic but who do not belong to the culture in question get looped into being labeled part of the problem.

 

This poses a great many ethical and practical problems. It would be like treating all white people as if they were white supremacists simply because white supremacists consider being white to be their own defining characteristic.

[Tampitump]

I don't really have any more arguments to make. I've presented what my positions are and the level of information I have on them. The people here have torn it all apart and disagree, so all I can do is concede the win. I'm not very informed, I admit it.

 

To be honest, I'm not very good at doing research, or making strong arguments or assessments of the material when its attained. I've been out-witted by the most ditsy, air-headed girls from high school on facebook in some arguments.

 

I try to take on positions that are mostly considered informed or intelligent, but many times I get caught in not being able to defend them beyond the typical soundbites popularly espoused. I present the essence of a free-thinker and informed person, but what I really do is learn a surface understanding of the position, memorize what popular individuals say, then sort of paraphrase them partially in my own words. I know that other people probably do this as well to some degree, but I do it with pretty much everything. Honestly, I'm too lazy to really be a well-read, academically-ambitious person. I wish I were. Some people always seem to have the right knowledge at the right time on tap. I just don't have that ability.

[imatfaal]

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on.

 

I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality.

 

Here's just a small sample of the pew data:

 

People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery:

 

Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people)

Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people)

Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people)

 

Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people

 

People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion:

 

Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people)

Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people)

Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people)

Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people)

 

Total - Roughly 238,358,908

 

And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling.

 

So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented.

 

"People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery" are you sure of that? My very quick read of Pew data would make that

 

People who are Muslim AND who are in favour of Sharia Law as National Criminal Code AND who think Death Penalty for Apotasy / Stoning for Adultry . ie they didn't ask the 10% Christian Community about Sharia - and they didn't ask the quarter of Muslims who didn't want Sharia about the punishments. It is still pretty dreadful - but the way to present information is honestly; as soon as it looks as if there is massaging going on then ...

 

- and that figure of actual number of people you have given does not seem right in those circumstance.

 

Perhaps I have looked at the wrong survey - but then as you did not give a full source I had to guess.

 

 

"And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries." Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world! Egypt is the most populous country in the Middle East. Small countries?

[Strange]

I don't really have any more arguments to make. I've presented what my positions are and the level of information I have on them. The people here have torn it all apart and disagree, so all I can do is concede the win. I'm not very informed, I admit it.

 

To be honest, I'm not very good at doing research, or making strong arguments or assessments of the material when its attained. I've been out-witted by the most ditsy, air-headed girls from high school on facebook in some arguments.

 

I try to take on positions that are mostly considered informed or intelligent, but many times I get caught in not being able to defend them beyond the typical soundbites popularly espoused. I present the essence of a free-thinker and informed person, but what I really do is learn a surface understanding of the position, memorize what popular individuals say, then sort of paraphrase them partially in my own words. I know that other people probably do this as well to some degree, but I do it with pretty much everything. Honestly, I'm too lazy to really be a well-read, academically-ambitious person. I wish I were. Some people always seem to have the right knowledge at the right time on tap. I just don't have that ability.

 

Kudos for admitting that your crude caricatures and bigotry are based on your limited understanding. I think it is a shame that you are not willing to learn more about the world - you might find that the world and most people's beliefs are not as hateful as you seem to think.

[Phi for All]

I don't really have any more arguments to make. I've presented what my positions are and the level of information I have on them. The people here have torn it all apart and disagree, so all I can do is concede the win. I'm not very informed, I admit it.

 

To be honest, I'm not very good at doing research, or making strong arguments or assessments of the material when its attained. I've been out-witted by the most ditsy, air-headed girls from high school on facebook in some arguments.

 

I try to take on positions that are mostly considered informed or intelligent, but many times I get caught in not being able to defend them beyond the typical soundbites popularly espoused. I present the essence of a free-thinker and informed person, but what I really do is learn a surface understanding of the position, memorize what popular individuals say, then sort of paraphrase them partially in my own words. I know that other people probably do this as well to some degree, but I do it with pretty much everything. Honestly, I'm too lazy to really be a well-read, academically-ambitious person. I wish I were. Some people always seem to have the right knowledge at the right time on tap. I just don't have that ability.

 

What's important here is not about the arguments. The arguments are for us all to shave away at our ignorance, something that needs to be done on a daily basis. That's the important part, that we listen to reasoned arguments, assess their validity and merit in the context of reality, and hopefully take away a nugget of knowledge. None of it should be considered in the negative; learning the things you shouldn't do is also valid.

 

Opinions should be rooted in fact. The more facts you have, the more meaningful and nuanced your opinions will be. There's a famous case about the Baltimore Needle Exchange program that I like to use to highlight the importance of facts over emotionally laden opinion. I'll paraphrase the story like a conversation:

 

Baltimore Press: "OMG, the city is giving out free NEEDLES to junkies! Drug use will soar!"

 

Needle Exchange Program: "Actually, we're exchanging clean needles for used ones, in an effort to stem our out-of-control HIV epidemic, and it seems to be working. And no, drug use isn't increasing because of it."

 

Press: "We have footage of some people who are collecting bags full of needles, exchanging them for new ones, and SELLING them to junkies for a dollar! These people are making money at the taxpayers expense! They're taking advantage...!"

 

NEP: "Actually, we know about those people, and consider them our most valuable asset. They know where the junkies hang out, and they're very thorough about finding these dirty needles. In fact, this program has had such a positive effect on our HIV epidemic that we're hiring these needle-collectors to pass our literature about our other drug programs, and inform users about where to go to get help."

 

 

Like everything else, critical thinking takes experience. You're getting that here. You're better about expressing your thoughts than you were before you joined. You're being exposed to perspectives from around the world. It's a lot to take in, but you're doing it the right way. There are no shortcuts to being better informed and a better critical thinker. You need to practice, and not give up.

[Delta1212]

I don't really have any more arguments to make. I've presented what my positions are and the level of information I have on them. The people here have torn it all apart and disagree, so all I can do is concede the win. I'm not very informed, I admit it.

 

To be honest, I'm not very good at doing research, or making strong arguments or assessments of the material when its attained. I've been out-witted by the most ditsy, air-headed girls from high school on facebook in some arguments.

 

I try to take on positions that are mostly considered informed or intelligent, but many times I get caught in not being able to defend them beyond the typical soundbites popularly espoused. I present the essence of a free-thinker and informed person, but what I really do is learn a surface understanding of the position, memorize what popular individuals say, then sort of paraphrase them partially in my own words. I know that other people probably do this as well to some degree, but I do it with pretty much everything. Honestly, I'm too lazy to really be a well-read, academically-ambitious person. I wish I were. Some people always seem to have the right knowledge at the right time on tap. I just don't have that ability.

It's not really an ability. It's some effort combined with a good amount of time and interest. I started getting really into political theory roughly 8 or 9 years ago. I was playing a political online game at the time, and while the game itself was instructive in some hands on ways, the real benefit was that the community drew heavily from the politically interested and from a very wide array of backgrounds. Especially back then when the Internet wasn't quite so pervasively politicized as it has gotten right now, the mix of politically interested and politically opposed viewpoints was not easy to come by and it still isn't, really, in quite the same way.

 

I watched and participated in some debates between hardcore libertarians that actually did want to privatize all of the stuff I talked about before and some true Marxist Communists and plenty of people in between or who didn't really fall along that particular scale at all.

 

I think it's important to try to expose yourself to as many different ideas as possible, expressed by people who subscribe to them and know what they are talking about and to really listen. Even for ideas you vehemently oppose, you should be able to understand why a reasonable person would hold that view, what the perceived benefits are and/or what would motivate someone to subscribe to specific viewpoint. I find this is generally doable even with the most abhorrent of philosophies and it's certainly doable with anything approach mainstream in American political discourse even if you personally really dislike it.

 

I consider it a social responsibility to be as informed as possible in this respect, because if I'm voting and get it wrong, it's not just me who suffers the consequences of my mistake.

[MigL]

Keep it up Tampitump.

Remember the good advice all these guys gave you on the education thread ?

Don't give up !

If you have an idea, run with it.

 

But while we're on the subject Phi, I've always had a problem with "safe' injection sites ( although I don't question the results ).

 

Drug use IS illegal, as is (slow) suicide.

These are state sanctioned suicide sites that diminish the collateral damage.

 

Why not 'safe shooting sites', where gang bangers can go to shoot each other without killing any innocent bystanders.

[Phi for All]

But while we're on the subject Phi, I've always had a problem with "safe' injection sites ( although I don't question the results ).

 

Drug use IS illegal, as is (slow) suicide.

These are state sanctioned suicide sites that diminish the collateral damage.

 

Why not 'safe shooting sites', where gang bangers can go to shoot each other without killing any innocent bystanders.

 

Because punishment isn't as effective as rehabilitation. In the US, we have a heavy, conservative policy that focuses on punishment as opposed to restraint, or rehab. We even punish people before we put them on trial to determine their innocence or guilt, with our bail system. You talk about collateral damage, but this conservative, the-bad-guys-must-pay policy ignores all the collateral effects that often lead to incarceration in the US.

 

In the instance of intravenous drug use, there are many collateral concerns that a knee-jerk, off-with-their-heads! policy will never address.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/how-effective-drug-addiction-treatment

Relapse rates for addiction resemble those of other chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma.

What people do to get these drugs is often prison-worthy, but science is showing us that the drug use itself looks more like a medical problem, which isn't helped with mere restraint, and certainly not with punishment protocols. I think these needle exchange programs are a smart use of taxpayer funding.

[Willie71]

Keep it up Tampitump.

Remember the good advice all these guys gave you on the education thread ?

Don't give up !

If you have an idea, run with it.

 

But while we're on the subject Phi, I've always had a problem with "safe' injection sites ( although I don't question the results ).

 

Drug use IS illegal, as is (slow) suicide.

These are state sanctioned suicide sites that diminish the collateral damage.

 

Why not 'safe shooting sites', where gang bangers can go to shoot each other without killing any innocent bystanders.

Drug abuse is a medical issue, not a criminal issue. Trying to screw a nail in with a screwdriver tends not to work very well. Use the right tool for the job, which needle exchange programs do.

[MigL]

When you get right down to it, you can make the argument that any crime is a medical issue.

Would any sane person commit murder ?

Could greed be considered an 'addiction' to money and wealth such that bank robberies are the result of an addiction ?

If an alcoholic struck one of your family members while driving drunk, would you excuse it because he's an addict, or would you want him/her prosecuted for a CRIME ?

 

You gotta be consistent in your tool usage. Not use a screwdriver for one nail, and a hammer for another.

( and I do know safe injection sites work, its just the thinking behind them that I can't wrap my head around. Either something is legal, or its illegal )

Edited September 13, 2016 by MigL

[Phi for All]

You gotta be consistent in your tool usage. Not use a screwdriver for one nail, and a hammer for another.

( and I do know safe injection sites work, its just the thinking behind them that I can't wrap my head around. Either something is legal, or its illegal )

 

Not in the US. This is a prime example of a social, medical concern that's been run through the capitalist filters so often that profiteering from our penal system has fueled its growth beyond anything else in the world. Law enforcement and the penal system are supposed to be supported by social economic systems, but the application of business models have grown the system to where we have 1 in 4 prisoners on the planet now. Our big mistake here is not letting our social systems work the way they're supposed to. We allow our capitalist economy take advantage of taxpayer funding, so bills that should help our social structure end up doing more for the business sector. Or a great investment in People who weren't born into opportunity gets cut in half because conservatives are so worried People might get help who don't deserve it.

 

And actually, nobody is using the tools the way you describe. Not all junkies are nails; some are screws, and some are staples, and some are brads, and some are magnets. Medical professionals have a better toolbox than correctional officers for these types of fasteners.

[MigL]

So again, Phi...

An alcoholic strikes a family member while driving drunk.

Is he an addict or a criminal ?

 

What tool do you want to use ?

[Willie71]

So again, Phi...

An alcoholic strikes a family member while driving drunk.

Is he an addict or a criminal ?

 

What tool do you want to use ?

This situation requires a hybrid response, much like the NCR status we have in Canada. Nothing wrong with removing a driver's licence or secure treatment (if they agree) or jail time. Not all drunk drivers are addicted to alcohol. The opportunity to treat an addiction must be present as punnishment as deterrence is not associated with success at all. I don't mean the Mickey Mouse D&A groups run by correctional officers. I mean evidence informed treatments by qualified professionals. Edited September 14, 2016 by Willie71

[iNow]

What is my argument? Tell me what my argument is?

I'm gonna go out in a limb here and assume that you're doing your best to repeat what you've heard or read from Sam Harris, yeah?

 

I admire and respect Sam Harris, but even he makes sure to inform himself of the broader issues before casting wide nets. You're simply not doing justice to the actual circumstances at play as already explained by several other posters.

 

Stop taking the criticisms and corrections you receive so personally. Be thankful that folks here are willing to partner with you to minimize your biases, fill your knowledge gaps, and engage with you as an equal with civility and respect.

[Tampitump]

I think it's important to try to expose yourself to as many different ideas as possible

To be honest, I regret the moment I started pursuing knowledge and understanding. I feel like my life has only been more miserable for these past 5 or 6 years since I started this intellectual journey of seeking more education and understanding. Being ignorant is great. Life felt much funner, reassuring, and enjoyable when I was ignorant, religious, and carefree. Though, I'm not sure if I'm any wiser now than then, I at least have an understanding of how epistemology, skepticism, and evidence works, and my understanding of the universe is much closer to reality than it was back then. I look at all of my religious friends on facebook (which is 99% of them), and it is obvious that most of them have never once pondered anything deep for more than a few seconds in their life. They live in total rapturous, blissful ignorance, and I remember what that was like. It was great when reality was what you make it. Life was fun when you could walk into your church, have a hell of a good time, never think about the truth of anything you believed, and go about your life with your comforting delusions providing everything your simple, troglodydic brain needs. I'm not joking at all, I really do miss that. I would trade everything I've learned in the past 5 or 6 years to have that back.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Tampitump