lowing wrote:
Just like the last time, you claim you are not saying something as you say it. so no I am not going to play.
your second sentence is exactly what I am talking about. We are talking about drug addiction and yet somehow you tie it into driving or eating fast food as if it is the same problem. I recognize just living in a society cost money to do so, however I am not prepared to tell a society you can only weigh between 160 and 194 or you can only have a BMI of 3%. Or to tell people they can not drive I am prepared however to tell drug addicts yo are on your own if you knowingly and willingly choose self destruction.
Really? there are plenty of jobs where you can show up hungover, not produce, constantly miss work, perform below expectations, constantly late, and still get paid without any worry of being terminated..Do tell.
Already answered that. Prisons as the rec centers we have today yup would be a strain. Prisons as the should be, probably not as much.
I'm not saying that fat people and drug addicts are the 'same' which you would know if you bothered to try and understand my points.
We are talking about drug addiction, yes. You say that you don't want to pay for other people's mistakes or lifestyles. Fair enough. To be logical you must also not want to pay for medical care for obese people who are fat due to eating too much, or for people who crash when driving too fast [the point is NOT driving per se but driving in a kwilfully dangerous manner, just as the point is NOT about taking drugs per se but taking drugs to the extent you become addicted], or engage in dangerous sports, or any of a thousand other potentially dangerous things. But you're not saying that, so your arguments are not consistent or logical but prejudiced and biased.
you say for example that when it comes to drug addicts you want people to be responsible but not for other behaviour, addictive or not, that also places a strain on resources. I assume you do NOT think that smokers, then (let's forget fat people for now since you're obviously missing the point), or people who drink too much alcohol should receive medical care, right?
You simply have not addressed any of my points and just dismiss them saying it's some game I'm playing, when I'm merely pointing out all the many inconsistencies in your fallacious arguments. you just can't take it, that's all.
Who said anything about showing up hungover, not produce, miss work and all that shit? You earlier were openly talking about drinking in the past 8 hours. Never said anything about all the other shit you mentioned - again, your tactic of making shit up that no-one else said. There are lots of jobs wjhere you CAN show up hungover. like a store clerk, cleaner, journalist, whatever. Just a few examples. Obviously not if you're in charge of dangerous machinery or something.
You didn't answer this:
Do you SERIOUSLY think buuilding massive prisons will a) make society better, and b) not be an equal drain (compared with rehab) on your precious tax dollars? You're living in fairyland.
You also refuse to attempt to prove how NO drug addict can be useful to society. Again, prejudice and fear based on ignorance.
lowing wrote:
don't care, I would rather spend money on punishment than to subsidize stupidity and because if they are drug addicts prision is where they are going to wind up anyway, so avoid the middle man and just lock the dumb fuck away for as long as they CHOSE.
It all comes down to freedom and responsibility. If you want the freedom to do drugs, accept the responsibility and the eventual consequences for that action. I will exercise my freedom NOT TO do drugs. I will be damned if I am going to sit here and say, no problem do all the drugs you want, I will work harder and let govt. take even more money away from my family to pay for your rehab when you think you're through.
OK fine, I get your point, but why do you NOT expand your principle to ALL areas of human behaviour where EXACTLY the same things can be said?
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-09 05:08:40)
