decline reported in Afghan poppy crop

[Ramo]

As I said, I'm sure you've had a rape fantasy before. Most guys have in my experience. Just because part of you, however small, feels like you'd want to do that, does that make it moral, something that you should do?

[Kidlicious]

I feel remorse not for him, but for society, because of the crime that he commited. We have to punish him which is something that we would rather not do, but not punishing him is something that would make us feel worse.

I don't justify hurting him more than he hurt someone else, or even as much, but I don't consider all people good, so I don't feel remorse for bad people. This might have something to do with how I was raised or it might be a natural tendency with some people.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
As I said, I'm sure you've had a rape fantasy before. Most guys have in my experience. Just because part of you, however small, feels like you'd want to do that, does that make it moral, something that you should do?

Actually no I have not had a rape fantasy. I've fantasized about using violence against people I hate who do horrible things, and don't feel remorse. I don't really want to use violence, because of the bad feeling I would get otherwise, but a worse thing for me would be letting people get away with those things.

[Kidlicious]

I don't actually believe in violence as a punishment though. I don't spank my son anymore. I just gave him little spankings when he was 3 and 4.

[Ramo]

This is just a foreign idea to my thinking, that revenge is moral. That it's ok to do deny freedom to "bad people" for no other reason that that they're "bad people."

Why not draw and quarter murderers/drug dealers/"bad people"? Why not cause the maximum possible amount of pain and suffering? If their freedom has absolutely no value, why not go all the way? Why not put them in concentration camps so they could be used as slave labor or guinea pigs for medical testing?

[Ramo]

Why not minimize pain, suffering, etc.? I don't get it. Why deny freedom to people without any benefit to society?

[Fake Boris]

The problem with Kidicious is that he decided that selling drugs is intrinsically immoral.

Everyone acknowledges that this is a moot point, given that allowing people to sell drugs legally reduce the occurences of problems resulting from drug use.

Tell us, Kiddy, if selling drugs is not bad because of the problems it creates, but rather for another reason, what can it be?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
This is just a foreign idea to my thinking, that revenge is moral. That it's ok to do deny freedom to "bad people" for no other reason that that they're "bad people."

Why not draw and quarter murderers/drug dealers/"bad people"? Why not cause the maximum possible amount of pain and suffering? If their freedom has absolutely no value, why not go all the way? Why not put them in concentration camps so they could be used as slave labor or guinea pigs for medical testing?

Well they are bad people, but they are still people.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The problem with Kidicious is that he decided that selling drugs is intrinsically immoral.

Everyone acknowledges that this is a moot point, given that allowing people to sell drugs legally reduce the occurences of problems resulting from drug use.

Tell us, Kiddy, if selling drugs is not bad because of the problems it creates, but rather for another reason, what can it be?

I don't really like to be called Kiddy. People call me that who don't really like me. Kid is ok. And I think it is intrinsically immoral. Some people don't just want to think about the consequences of their actions. When I'm drinking a beer I don't think about drunk drivers killing a family in their car. If I did I wouldn't enjoy it.

[Ramo]

Right, they're still people. So why take away their freedom if it doesn't benefit society?

[Berzerker]

Kid

Partially responsible. I like to drink. I get a benefit from it, because I'm not an alcoholic.

But you drink booze and want to punish people who use drugs you don't like because they are "partially responsible". And dont dodge me with "it isn't punishment" You said drug users must be "prevented" from using drugs because they are "partially responsible" for harming society and that this responsibility makes their drug use immoral, but your admitted "partial responsibility" makes your use of booze immoral for the same reason so why shouldn't you be "prevented" from using booze.

The thing about your idea of freedom is you have a tendency to limit responsibility to those who actually pull the trigger so to speak.

You mean the people who are guilty? Imagine that

People who do immoral things depend on others to do them. Drug dealers depend on users to do what they do. That makes the users partially responsible.

For what? Buy their products just like everyone else with something to sell? Thats what drug dealers want, Mr Miller and his friend Bud told me so. Sounds like you just cant avoid using generalisations instead of explaining why you have harmed society by selling me a bag of pot. You wouldn't think so highly of generalisations if someone did something bad to you because you drink booze (or because of your skin color).

You have a duty to society to do what you can within reason. I think refraining from drugs is within reason.

Ah, this "social contract" again? Why is selling me tobacco or booze "within reason" but not pot? What should be your punishment for slavery?

Again with the 'punish.' I guess you can't help it. Stopping someone from doing something immoral is not punishment. It does'nt matter who the kid bought the alcohol from, all the dealers are guilty.

Then all alcohol dealers are guilty when a kid overdoses and justice demands you be punished for your responsibility as a booze drinker. And yes, making pot illegal punishes the people involved - its taking away their freedom based on someone else's actions (and thats immoral). What are you going to do to the people who get the pot inspite of your efforts to prevent them? Punish them by taking away their freedom until they learn to follow your instructions? Just how do you plan on enforcing this law without punishment? You said drug use wasn't immoral and now you're assuming it is for your argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
Right, they're still people. So why take away their freedom if it doesn't benefit society?

Best answer I can give you is that it makes people feel like there is some sense to society. People want to have a moral govt. They don't like immoral things to be legal, unless they are petty. I see your point, but it doesn't change my mind.

[Berzerker]

But you don't cry over the loss of freedom for the murderer.

Still equating murder with drug use?

When I'm drinking a beer I don't think about drunk drivers killing a family in their car. If I did I wouldn't enjoy it.

Doesn't your justice require you be "prevented" from drinking booze?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

But you drink booze and want to punish people who use drugs you don't like because they are "partially responsible". And dont dodge me with "it isn't punishment" You said drug users must be "prevented" from using drugs because they are "partially responsible" for harming society and that this responsibility makes their drug use immoral, but your admitted "partial responsibility" makes your use of booze immoral for the same reason so why shouldn't you be "prevented" from using booze.

First, making something illegal is not punishing people. You are partially responsible for doing immoral things, but you aren't being punished when are prevented from doing those things. You are punished when they are illegal and you do them anyway. You libertarians really have such problems with simple words.

Second, the reason the I said that I was 'on the line' about booze' is because making it illegal is not really feazable. I would like it to be illegal if it were feazable.

For what? Buy their products just like everyone else with something to sell? Thats what drug dealers want, Mr Miller and his friend Bud told me so. Sounds like you just cant avoid using generalisations instead of explaining why you have harmed society by selling me a bag of pot. You wouldn't think so highly of generalisations if someone did something bad to you because you drink booze (or because of your skin color).

I did explain it to you. Drugs are available because people use them and sell them. By using drugs you become part of that and so you are responsible.

Ah, this "social contract" again? Why is selling me tobacco or booze "within reason" but not pot? What should be your punishment for slavery?

Like I said, I think selling alcohol and tobacco is horrible. It's socially acceptable so what can we do? I shouldn't drink booze or smoke pot, but I do sometimes. I've cut back a lot, partially because I see what it contributes to.

Then all alcohol dealers are guilty when a kid overdoses and justice demands you be punished for your responsibility as a booze drinker. And yes, making pot illegal punishes the people involved - its taking away their freedom based on someone else's actions (and thats immoral). What are you going to do to the people who get the pot inspite of your efforts to prevent them? Punish them by taking away their freedom until they learn to follow your instructions? Just how do you plan on enforcing this law without punishment? You said drug use wasn't immoral and now you're assuming it is for your argument.

I'm not even close to believing that making it illegal to sell drugs is taking away someones freedom.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Doesn't your justice require you be "prevented" from drinking booze?

Do you think there is anyone in the world who doesn't violate their own code of morality? I don't drink much. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to do. I cuss in front of my son sometimes, and now he cusses. I knew it was wrong, but I still did it, because it's not really that big of a deal.