This is some un-American SHIT.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6690
That's a very stupid analogy. Your analogy brings into a whole bunch of other issues like parental consent, and age of permission. Alcohol is also a legally regulated substance. The OP and the drug kingpin are going to prison for selling an illegal substance. For and to whom isn't the issue at all. The age and number of people is absolutely meaningless.Jaekus wrote:
Not at all. As an analogy, that would be akin to saying giving a beer to someone under age is ethically the same as hosting a party for a few hundred kids and feeding them all absinthe.Macbeth wrote:
???Your scenario of drug kingping, yes he should go to jail. Based on the type of drug, amount, and wanted to smuggle in through an airport.
The only differance between the mother and the drug kingpin is the type of drug and the amount otherwise they are on the same ethical level...
I don't think either should go to prison. btw.
So yeah your analogy is pretty stupid.
Doesn't even address My views which is: the government has nil authority to tell me what I can or can not put into or do with my own body. Whether I want to pump myself full of pot and crack or shot myself. The government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot do to myself as long as I don't harm anyone else. My philosophical position covers everyone from the women selling a litle herb to get by or the person living the high life selling coke. I don't make arbitrary distinctions like you are doing here.
Fuck even lowing recognized the contradictions in your logic. (I don't mean that as an insult, lowing)
You can't see the ethical difference between the two? And you think my example is stupid?
Haha, please yourself.
Haha, please yourself.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-21 20:26:31)
Yes, the punishment. Not whether she is dealing or not, that has never been in contention.lowing wrote:
It isn't? punishment for this ladies drug dealing, I thought, was exactly the point of this threadJaekus wrote:
That's not the point of the thread.
As much as you bitch and complain about lowing being a stubborn dick it's funny that you just side stepped an actual thought out response and responded with an insult.Jaekus wrote:
You can't see the ethical difference between the two? And you think my example is stupid?
Haha, please yourself.
Excellent work. You are clearly a superior being to most of us especially lowing.
Do I really have to explain this? I thought you knew better, but clearly I was mistaken.
I've covered it in a previous post to lowing, I cbf typing it out again as I've got better things to do with my time.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p3539510
Compare this to trafficking large amounts of cocaine as being on the same ethical level? Are you really that naive?
I've covered it in a previous post to lowing, I cbf typing it out again as I've got better things to do with my time.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p3539510
Compare this to trafficking large amounts of cocaine as being on the same ethical level? Are you really that naive?
yes.
Read what you wrote to me after I wrote out a response to you. You ignored the entire argument and told me more or less told me to fuck off. That was very rude of you and it genuinely upsets me that I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt and wrote out a meaningful response in which I never insulted you and what did I get for that? Told to fuck off. Shit, at least lowing responds to my post with an argument.
How the marijuana is produced where you live and were a poor mother in Oklahoma gets her pot from is irrelevant. Even if it did matter- the likelihood of a poor mother selling drugs in Oklahoma having a connection to a upscale growing operation is much less than the likelihood she got her pot in bulk from either a street gang or from south american suppliers. Even so we still don't know where she got her pot from and are mostly speculating despite the fact I'm probably right in my assumption she didn't get her pt from an upscale growing operation.
And lastly, the argument that the coke is 'produced by blood' is undefendable argument if you live in the west, as you do. Everything we have here is covered in the blood of someone else...
And of all of this still has nothing to do with my argument, which is the popular one among Americans on this forum, that the government has no authority to tell us we cannot put something into our own bodies.
How the marijuana is produced where you live and were a poor mother in Oklahoma gets her pot from is irrelevant. Even if it did matter- the likelihood of a poor mother selling drugs in Oklahoma having a connection to a upscale growing operation is much less than the likelihood she got her pot in bulk from either a street gang or from south american suppliers. Even so we still don't know where she got her pot from and are mostly speculating despite the fact I'm probably right in my assumption she didn't get her pt from an upscale growing operation.
And lastly, the argument that the coke is 'produced by blood' is undefendable argument if you live in the west, as you do. Everything we have here is covered in the blood of someone else...
And of all of this still has nothing to do with my argument, which is the popular one among Americans on this forum, that the government has no authority to tell us we cannot put something into our own bodies.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-05-21 21:07:12)
*irrelevant
motherfucker \o/
Geez dude, I didn't think you were so sensitive. I was kinda over this discussion last night when talking with lowing so my patience is a little thin to begin with, hence I can't really be bothered typing this shit out, but for you, I will.Macbeth wrote:
Read what you wrote to me after I wrote out a response to you. You ignored the entire argument and told me more or less told me to fuck off. That was very rude of you and it genuinely upsets me that I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt and wrote out a meaningful response in which I never insulted you and what did I get for that? Told to fuck off. Shit, at least lowing responds to my post with an argument.
I made the same assumption too. She could've as well. Despite what the law states, selling a couple grams of pot is a LOT different to transporting kilograms of cocaine. Anyone can see this. The ethical implications of the two are on one level similar (selling illegal drugs) but from there it is a world of difference. Even on a legal surface level, cocaine is a class A drug whilst cannabis is a class B drug. It is my presumption that the woman who sold the pot would not likely sell kilograms of cocaine, because that would be ethically wrong. Having a bag of pot in your handbag is a lot different to kilos of coke when you are raising children, moral implications of drug dealing aside.How the marijuana is produced where you live and were a poor mother in Oklahoma gets her pot from is irrelevant. Even if it did matter- the likelihood of a poor mother selling drugs in Oklahoma having a connection to a upscale growing operation is much less than the likelihood she got her pot in bulk from either a street gang or from south american suppliers. Even so we still don't know where she got her pot from and are mostly speculating despite the fact I'm probably right in my assumption she didn't get her pt from an upscale growing operation.
Not saying you're wrong but have you got any data on this? I'm always interested to learn more about this topic.And lastly, the argument that the coke is 'produced by blood' is undefendable argument if you live in the west, as you do. Everything we have here is covered in the blood of someone else...
With that, I agree. Hence why I believe drugs should be decriminalized.And of all of this still has nothing to do with my argument, which is the popular one among Americans on this forum, that the government has no authority to tell us we cannot put something into our own bodies.
So, what, graphics card manufacturers cut people's heads off?Macbeth wrote:
And lastly, the argument that the coke is 'produced by blood' is undefendable argument if you live in the west, as you do. Everything we have here is covered in the blood of someone else....
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
ATIDilbert_X wrote:
So, what, graphics card manufacturers cut people's heads off?Macbeth wrote:
And lastly, the argument that the coke is 'produced by blood' is undefendable argument if you live in the west, as you do. Everything we have here is covered in the blood of someone else....
which ones use parts from foxconn
Glad I've stuck with NVIDIA then.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
There is no ethical difference between the 2, only the amount of drugs is different, the intent, the lack of morality, is exactly the same.Jaekus wrote:
You can't see the ethical difference between the two? And you think my example is stupid?
Haha, please yourself.
As I said, it does not matter where in the chain you are linked to the drug trafficking the only point that comes into play ethically is, you are linked to it. It can't get from point A to point Z without all links in the chain intact, if you are part of that chain, then you are just as guilty of drug trafficking as any one else in the chain.
and again, you wanna assume that she got her stash from a single plant, fine, I will ask again, how many drug dealers do you know that operate from a single plant. Also you wanna assume she has never done this before because this is the first time she has been caught, fine. How many times do drug dealers sell to undercover cops, when the cop wasn't investigating the crime in the first place? Or did you think it was all just a coincidence that the first time she sold drugs just happened to be to an undercover cop?
1) I never assumed it was from a single plant, I said was possible. I said it was likely to have been grown in a back yard operation. Different thing.
2) I'm not making that assumption either it is her first time. But if you want to continue to put words in my mouth, if it makes you happy. I will continue to point out your inaccuracies.
3) please get your facts correct if you are wanting to discuss this with me further. You wrote a whole paragraph about nothing I've said.
4) ethically, selling a small amount of a plant that is a class B drug is not the same as selling KILOGRAMS of a refined class A drug.
2) I'm not making that assumption either it is her first time. But if you want to continue to put words in my mouth, if it makes you happy. I will continue to point out your inaccuracies.
3) please get your facts correct if you are wanting to discuss this with me further. You wrote a whole paragraph about nothing I've said.
4) ethically, selling a small amount of a plant that is a class B drug is not the same as selling KILOGRAMS of a refined class A drug.
1. I see, so you think it is "POSSIBLE", a drug dealer is operating from a single plant....got it. kinda of a stretch in portraying this woman as a victim of stupid US laws isn't it?Jaekus wrote:
1) I never assumed it was from a single plant, I said was possible. I said it was likely to have been grown in a back yard operation. Different thing.
2) I'm not making that assumption either it is her first time. But if you want to continue to put words in my mouth, if it makes you happy. I will continue to point out your inaccuracies.
3) please get your facts correct if you are wanting to discuss this with me further. You wrote a whole paragraph about nothing I've said.
4) ethically, selling a small amount of a plant that is a class B drug is not the same as selling KILOGRAMS of a refined class A drug.
2. Again, then if you are not making that "assumption either", that further destroys your opinion that is "POSSIBLE", she is operating from a single plant doesn't it. Which is it Jaekus, do you think she is an established dealer, or just some poor grandmother, that just was trying to sell this ONE bag of dope then retire? You can't have both.
3. Actually I did, I challenged your belief that ethically they are different. you either choose to ignore it, or can not argue against it. I can not help either case.
4. Sorry, I disagree, LEGALLY they are different in the eyes of the law, ETHICALLY, they are selling drugs which is illegal. They are part of the same chain of drug dealing of which I speak, one is just higher up the chain than the other.
1) you avoided what I said was likely. Try again.
2) innocent till proven otherwise.
3) you said I want to assume. I made no such statement. Again, check your facts.
4) how many drug dealers have you known to make such claims? Personally, I've known several.
2) innocent till proven otherwise.
3) you said I want to assume. I made no such statement. Again, check your facts.
4) how many drug dealers have you known to make such claims? Personally, I've known several.
1. You did say it was "POSSIBLE" she operated from a single plant, didn't you? How am I avoiding that, I dunno. As far as 36 kilos being grown in her back yard or South America, the difference eludes me there as well.Jaekus wrote:
1) you avoided what I said was likely. Try again.
2) innocent till proven otherwise.
3) you said I want to assume. I made no such statement. Again, check your facts.
4) how many drug dealers have you known to make such claims? Personally, I've known several.
2. and she was found guilty, so, so much for that.
3. you said nothing of the assumption of ethics, you were clear on that point, you said they were different, I challenged that opinion, all I need now from you is to challenge my opinion on it.
4. here ya lost me. I do not see how your response address what I said in point 4.
1) 1.5g of pot is somehow different than 36kg of cocaine. Or if you were to catch your 17 year old with a bag if pot your level of concern would be equal to if he had 36kgbof coke? Somehow I think not.
2) guilty of the crime she was caught for. The other parts you added are mere supposition.
3) I don't feel the need to challenge your opinion on it. You're free to hold whatever opinion you like. I was just clearing up that my opinion is not what you said it was.
4) what knowledge do you have of drug networks being of the same chain of drug dealing? My own experience says otherwise. Usually someone who sells pot "might" know of someone who can get coke but it does not mean they are part of the same chain. Unless a certain dealer is well connected they usually "specialize" in what they themselves take.
2) guilty of the crime she was caught for. The other parts you added are mere supposition.
3) I don't feel the need to challenge your opinion on it. You're free to hold whatever opinion you like. I was just clearing up that my opinion is not what you said it was.
4) what knowledge do you have of drug networks being of the same chain of drug dealing? My own experience says otherwise. Usually someone who sells pot "might" know of someone who can get coke but it does not mean they are part of the same chain. Unless a certain dealer is well connected they usually "specialize" in what they themselves take.
All said and done I'm pretty over this conversation. Posting from my phone at work is adding to it.
1. Kinda missing the point here Jaekus, it is safe to assume that the 1.5g of pot came from a larger source. I have no worries about my kids dealing or taking drugs, they were raised to be better than that, unlike most on this board apparently.Jaekus wrote:
1) 1.5g of pot is somehow different than 36kg of cocaine. Or if you were to catch your 17 year old with a bag if pot your level of concern would be equal to if he had 36kgbof coke? Somehow I think not.
2) guilty of the crime she was caught for. The other parts you added are mere supposition.
3) I don't feel the need to challenge your opinion on it. You're free to hold whatever opinion you like. I was just clearing up that my opinion is not what you said it was.
4) what knowledge do you have of drug networks being of the same chain of drug dealing? My own experience says otherwise. Usually someone who sells pot "might" know of someone who can get coke but it does not mean they are part of the same chain. Unless a certain dealer is well connected they usually "specialize" in what they themselves take.
2. and whatever else you are adding to it is not mere supposition? She sold to an undercover cop that was obviously investigating her for drug dealing. She got a huge sentence. Obviously there is way more to her background than the "POSSIBILITY" she sold just this one time from a single plant.
3. You said ethically coke and pot dealing was not the same, I challenged that, so yes, your opinion is what I said it was.
4. what knowledge do I have? well, they are both illegal, they are both ethically wrong, they both get smuggled in our country, people have been killed over both, and you can go to jail for both. Was there another comparison that I have missed?
As far as posting from your phone, I don't blame ya.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat