You're great at assumption. A+
I'd rate you a C- in understanding someone's argument though.
I'd rate you a C- in understanding someone's argument though.
She could have a single plant of it in her backyard. $31 aint exactly a huge stash now is it?lowing wrote:
who is the victim of a cocaine dealer selling cocaine?AussieReaper wrote:
Who was the victim in the case of this woman selling $31 of weed?lowing wrote:
Well Jaekus....My question was primarily directed at the board, not specifically you. THat is why I said "THEIR" argument and not JAEKUS's argument. I hope that cleared up any misunderstanding.
I also take note that those that did claim drug dealing was a victimless crime are not coming here to answer my question.
ya see what I am getting at here? You can not have it both ways. You can not say this small time drug dealer wasn't hurting anyone and therefore should not be charged or should not be punished so severe, and then say the big time deal should go to jail for a long time with a different argument.
You have to pick one, is drugs a victimless crime or isn't it? Amount of drugs does not matter, the guy snorting cocaine I am sure was not going to snort all 36 kilos, it was going to be distributed, just like the marijuana did not start as 31 dollars worth, it probably started as several blocks somewhere up the line as well.
Who is the victim lowing? If you can't answer that question, than they are not the same.
The victim of the cocain? The user(s) who could die from the direct use. Who has ever died from the direct use of marijuana?
lowing wrote:
Oh sorry, I thought you were considering those people killed by drug traffickers as victims......my mistake for the assumption.Jaekus wrote:
Huh?lowing wrote:
oh so drug dealing is NOT a victimless crime...got it.
You're putting words in my mouth, and then arguing against them.
No wonder the forum thinks you're some breed of weirdo.
I rest my case *smug*Jaekus wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth, and then arguing against them.
I quoted YOU because YOU responded, not because I said YOU said it. But I am enjoying your usual pompous, condescending, superiority complex you are emulating..So please continue and keep me entertained for a few minutes more before I go to the gym.Jaekus wrote:
One person said it was a victimless crime, after you were the first to say it when quoting a post of mine.lowing wrote:
Well Jaekus....My question was primarily directed at the board, not specifically you. THat is why I said "THEIR" argument and not JAEKUS's argument. I hope that cleared up any misunderstanding.Jaekus wrote:
Actually that was not my argument at all.
At this rate you need to either learn to read properly or exit this discussion to save some measure of dignity.
I'd be personally embarrassed at the amount of ignorance you're displaying.
I also take note that those that did claim drug dealing was a victimless crime are not coming here to answer my question.
I think you need to brush up your english mate, your comprehension of it is pretty docile at best.
well then if you did not consider them victims, why even mention them?Jaekus wrote:
lowing wrote:
Oh sorry, I thought you were considering those people killed by drug traffickers as victims......my mistake for the assumption.Jaekus wrote:
Huh?
You're putting words in my mouth, and then arguing against them.
No wonder the forum thinks you're some breed of weirdo.I rest my case *smug*Jaekus wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth, and then arguing against them.
I never mentioned anything to do with victims. You did.lowing wrote:
well then if you did not consider them victims, why even mention them?Jaekus wrote:
lowing wrote:
Oh sorry, I thought you were considering those people killed by drug traffickers as victims......my mistake for the assumption.I rest my case *smug*Jaekus wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth, and then arguing against them.
*double smug*
Care for the trifecta?
Yeah she coulda had a single plant....how many drug dealers do you know operate from a single plant?AussieReaper wrote:
She could have a single plant of it in her backyard. $31 aint exactly a huge stash now is it?lowing wrote:
who is the victim of a cocaine dealer selling cocaine?AussieReaper wrote:
Who was the victim in the case of this woman selling $31 of weed?
ya see what I am getting at here? You can not have it both ways. You can not say this small time drug dealer wasn't hurting anyone and therefore should not be charged or should not be punished so severe, and then say the big time deal should go to jail for a long time with a different argument.
You have to pick one, is drugs a victimless crime or isn't it? Amount of drugs does not matter, the guy snorting cocaine I am sure was not going to snort all 36 kilos, it was going to be distributed, just like the marijuana did not start as 31 dollars worth, it probably started as several blocks somewhere up the line as well.
Who is the victim lowing? If you can't answer that question, than they are not the same.
The victim of the cocain? The user(s) who could die from the direct use. Who has ever died from the direct use of marijuana?
I do not consider a person that purposely takes drugs a victim, sorry.
I must admit it is quite hard not to be condescending towards someone who tries to "win" an argument they clearly know nothing about.lowing wrote:
I quoted YOU because YOU responded, not because I said YOU said it. But I am enjoying your usual pompous, condescending, superiority complex you are emulating..So please continue and keep me entertained for a few minutes more before I go to the gym.
But please, continue. I am literally L-O-Ling right now
Excellent.lowing wrote:
Yeah she coulda had a single plant....how many drug dealers do you know operate from a single plant?AussieReaper wrote:
She could have a single plant of it in her backyard. $31 aint exactly a huge stash now is it?lowing wrote:
who is the victim of a cocaine dealer selling cocaine?
ya see what I am getting at here? You can not have it both ways. You can not say this small time drug dealer wasn't hurting anyone and therefore should not be charged or should not be punished so severe, and then say the big time deal should go to jail for a long time with a different argument.
You have to pick one, is drugs a victimless crime or isn't it? Amount of drugs does not matter, the guy snorting cocaine I am sure was not going to snort all 36 kilos, it was going to be distributed, just like the marijuana did not start as 31 dollars worth, it probably started as several blocks somewhere up the line as well.
Who is the victim lowing? If you can't answer that question, than they are not the same.
The victim of the cocain? The user(s) who could die from the direct use. Who has ever died from the direct use of marijuana?
I do not consider a person that purposely takes drugs a victim, sorry.
So by your logic there was no victim in her case? Then why did she deserve 12 years for selling to someone who purposely bought?
^ pwned.
I didn't say she "DESERVED" anything. I said I don't care if she got life or was never charged. I am completely indifferent toward drug dealers and users. I simply don't care what happens to either of them, being gunned down in their car, or drowning in their own vomit, or living their entire lives in 10,000 sq ft villas in South America. I simply do not care.AussieReaper wrote:
Excellent.lowing wrote:
Yeah she coulda had a single plant....how many drug dealers do you know operate from a single plant?AussieReaper wrote:
She could have a single plant of it in her backyard. $31 aint exactly a huge stash now is it?
Who is the victim lowing? If you can't answer that question, than they are not the same.
The victim of the cocain? The user(s) who could die from the direct use. Who has ever died from the direct use of marijuana?
I do not consider a person that purposely takes drugs a victim, sorry.
So by your logic there was no victim in her case? Then why did she deserve 12 years for selling to someone who purposely bought?
Now, having said that, I do think their are victims to drugs, be it innocent people that get killed for money in order to get a fix, or children of crackhead parents. In cases such as those I want the crackheads punished for what they have done to another, not for being a crackhead. See how it all ties together to my point of not caring unless it interferes with another persons right to life liberty and happiness?
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-21 01:48:18)
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3539437Jaekus wrote:
You're great at assumption. A+
I'd rate you a C- in understanding someone's argument though.
yeah my fault Jaekus I apologize
and what do you know about this OP than no one else does?Jaekus wrote:
I must admit it is quite hard not to be condescending towards someone who tries to "win" an argument they clearly know nothing about.lowing wrote:
I quoted YOU because YOU responded, not because I said YOU said it. But I am enjoying your usual pompous, condescending, superiority complex you are emulating..So please continue and keep me entertained for a few minutes more before I go to the gym.
But please, continue. I am literally L-O-Ling right now
So you're pointing to a post I made which actually contradicts the words you are attempting to put in my mouth and argue against.lowing wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3539437Jaekus wrote:
You're great at assumption. A+
I'd rate you a C- in understanding someone's argument though.
yeah my fault Jaekus I apologize
*triple smug*
Trifecta complete
It gets a little boring to constantly explain to you how to read simple english, but again here I go.lowing wrote:
and what do you know about this OP than no one else does?Jaekus wrote:
I must admit it is quite hard not to be condescending towards someone who tries to "win" an argument they clearly know nothing about.lowing wrote:
I quoted YOU because YOU responded, not because I said YOU said it. But I am enjoying your usual pompous, condescending, superiority complex you are emulating..So please continue and keep me entertained for a few minutes more before I go to the gym.
But please, continue. I am literally L-O-Ling right now
Do you see the part where I said "you know nothing about"? That means you. It does not mean I have this amazing knowledge no one else does. It means you can't seem to comprehend the topic nor the points presented by various forum members, as argued by various forum members and shown time and time again, and thus to save what little face you have left it might be a better idea to just go to that gym you were talking about.
no Jaekus, I was pointing out an argument made ( not my argument) that drug dealing has no victims.....you then listed victims, after I confirmed you your listing of victims you proceeded to tell me I am putting words in your mouth, so I backed off and apologized for putting words in your mouth, and asked you why you would list victims if you were not counting them as victims.Jaekus wrote:
So you're pointing to a post I made which actually contradicts the words you are attempting to put in my mouth and argue against.lowing wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3539437Jaekus wrote:
You're great at assumption. A+
I'd rate you a C- in understanding someone's argument though.
yeah my fault Jaekus I apologize
*triple smug*
Trifecta complete
Regardless, I apologized for assuming those you listed as victims to the drug trade were victims of the drug trade
yes I can comprehend that, but given we all have the same information and different opinions regarding that information, what I can not comprehend is your insistence that my opinions are wrong and I am stupid, for no other reason than because you don't agree with them and not because of some fact based argument.Jaekus wrote:
It gets a little boring to constantly explain to you how to read simple english, but again here I go.lowing wrote:
and what do you know about this OP than no one else does?Jaekus wrote:
I must admit it is quite hard not to be condescending towards someone who tries to "win" an argument they clearly know nothing about.
But please, continue. I am literally L-O-Ling right now
Do you see the part where I said "you know nothing about"? That means you. It does not mean I have this amazing knowledge no one else does. It means you can't seem to comprehend the topic nor the points presented by various forum members, as argued by various forum members and shown time and time again, and thus to save what little face you have left it might be a better idea to just go to that gym you were talking about.
Not sure I saw any apology nor do I ask for one but whatever, the point is you're crossing two discussions between two different people and mixing them into one. This is where everything gets blurred and fucked and we need to go back and dissect what was said.lowing wrote:
no Jaekus, I was pointing out an argument made ( not my argument) that drug dealing has no victims.....you then listed victims, after I confirmed you your listing of victims you proceeded to tell me I am putting words in your mouth, so I backed off and apologized for putting words in your mouth, and asked you why you would list victims if you were not counting them as victims.Jaekus wrote:
So you're pointing to a post I made which actually contradicts the words you are attempting to put in my mouth and argue against.lowing wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3539437#p3539437
yeah my fault Jaekus I apologize
*triple smug*
Trifecta complete
Regardless, I apologized for assuming those you listed as victims to the drug trade were victims of the drug trade
For clarity: Drug dealing in itself is victimless when talking about the transaction of drugs and money as in the context of the thread. It is situational. The manufacture of drugs on a large scale in countries like South America is far from victimless. It's not black and white topic, nothing is; shades of grey abound. Hence why the dude with kilos of cocaine should get a lot of jail time, whereas the woman selling enough pot to get a few people stoned at a party and order Pizza Hut should not.
Look mate, we all have different opinions. And different life experiences. And different knowledge. And different world views. I happen to know a bit about drugs through study, experience, talking with lots of other people about them, etc. Hence why I take part in the discussion. I know little about weapons and army life, so whilst I might read on occasion, I do not engage in these topics because I simply don't have the experience or study in this field to contribute properly and try to give the impression I know what I'm on about, nor do I feel comfortable arguing that everyone is wrong because I've read some website on the net, despite those I would argue with having clearly a lot more experience and interest in the matter.lowing wrote:
yes I can comprehend that, but given we all have the same information and different opinions regarding that information, what I can not comprehend is your insistence that my opinions are wrong and I am stupid, for no other reason than because you don't agree with them and not because of some fact based argument.Jaekus wrote:
It gets a little boring to constantly explain to you how to read simple english, but again here I go.lowing wrote:
and what do you know about this OP than no one else does?
Do you see the part where I said "you know nothing about"? That means you. It does not mean I have this amazing knowledge no one else does. It means you can't seem to comprehend the topic nor the points presented by various forum members, as argued by various forum members and shown time and time again, and thus to save what little face you have left it might be a better idea to just go to that gym you were talking about.
and I think, assuming that 31 dollars worth of drugs came from a larger supply, that regardless where you are in the chain that leads to the individual sale of the drug, you are a part of the bigger picture and is just as guilty as the seller as the guy who smuggled it or grew it in mass quantities for distribution.Jaekus wrote:
Not sure I saw any apology nor do I ask for one but whatever, the point is you're crossing two discussions between two different people and mixing them into one. This is where everything gets blurred and fucked and we need to go back and dissect what was said.lowing wrote:
no Jaekus, I was pointing out an argument made ( not my argument) that drug dealing has no victims.....you then listed victims, after I confirmed you your listing of victims you proceeded to tell me I am putting words in your mouth, so I backed off and apologized for putting words in your mouth, and asked you why you would list victims if you were not counting them as victims.Jaekus wrote:
So you're pointing to a post I made which actually contradicts the words you are attempting to put in my mouth and argue against.
*triple smug*
Trifecta complete
Regardless, I apologized for assuming those you listed as victims to the drug trade were victims of the drug trade
For clarity: Drug dealing in itself is victimless when talking about the transaction of drugs and money as in the context of the thread. It is situational. The manufacture of drugs on a large scale in countries like South America is far from victimless. It's not black and white topic, nothing is; shades of grey abound. Hence why the dude with kilos of cocaine should get a lot of jail time, whereas the woman selling enough pot to get a few people stoned at a party and order Pizza Hut should not.
and I already stated who I believe the victims are in the drug trade.
That's fine, except in my experience most pot is grown in a hydroponic home set up and sold in bulk (in pounds) to a dealer, who then sells it on in smaller amounts (in ounces, up to a pound) to another dealer, who then sells it to the common user (anywhere from a bag to an ounce usually). I'm not saying this is how all pot is grown for the black market, but unless you're buying it from bikies, this is how it typically works. So yeah, the only victims I can see in this scenario are pizzas and doritoslowing wrote:
and I think, assuming that 31 dollars worth of drugs came from a larger supply, that regardless where you are in the chain that leads to the individual sale of the drug, you are a part of the bigger picture and is just as guilty as the seller as the guy who smuggled it or grew it in mass quantities for distribution.
and I already stated who I believe the victims are in the drug trade.
Large scale coke/heroin manufacture is so far removed from the OP it isn't really worth talking about IMO.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-21 02:30:43)
Jaekus, for the record, I have never said anyone's opinion, ever, was wrong. I challenge their opinions, I ask questions, but I never disrespect another member as being stupid because I disagree with them..Jaekus wrote:
Look mate, we all have different opinions. And different life experiences. And different knowledge. And different world views. I happen to know a bit about drugs through study, experience, talking with lots of other people about them, etc. Hence why I take part in the discussion. I know little about weapons and army life, so whilst I might read on occasion, I do not engage in these topics because I simply don't have the experience or study in this field to contribute properly and try to give the impression I know what I'm on about, nor do I feel comfortable arguing that everyone is wrong because I've read some website on the net, despite those I would argue with having clearly a lot more experience and interest in the matter.lowing wrote:
yes I can comprehend that, but given we all have the same information and different opinions regarding that information, what I can not comprehend is your insistence that my opinions are wrong and I am stupid, for no other reason than because you don't agree with them and not because of some fact based argument.Jaekus wrote:
It gets a little boring to constantly explain to you how to read simple english, but again here I go.
Do you see the part where I said "you know nothing about"? That means you. It does not mean I have this amazing knowledge no one else does. It means you can't seem to comprehend the topic nor the points presented by various forum members, as argued by various forum members and shown time and time again, and thus to save what little face you have left it might be a better idea to just go to that gym you were talking about.
Now, I have no experience with drugs, but do I really need first hand experience with drugs to understand the pitfalls that goes with them the abuses, the divorces, the loss of jobs, the crimes, the destruction of lives? Is that something I really need to experience first hand to KNOW it is a bad thing?
You have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, or met Bush, but you are not short of opinions on any of them. Fact is you do not need first hand experiences to know right from wrong or good from bad.
what is your point then, that 36 kilos of pot is bad but 31 dollars worth is ok? If that is the case I stick to my previous statement, regardless if you are the first guy selling bulk or the last guy selling it as a baggie, you are just as guilty of drug trafficking.Jaekus wrote:
That's fine, except in my experience most pot is grown in a hydroponic home set up and sold in bulk (in pounds) to a dealer, who then sells it on in smaller amounts (in ounces, up to a pound) to another dealer, who then sells it to the common user (anywhere from a bag to an ounce usually). I'm not saying this is how all pot is grown for the black market, but unless you're buying it from bikies, this is how it typically works. So yeah, the only victims I can see in this scenario are pizzas and doritoslowing wrote:
and I think, assuming that 31 dollars worth of drugs came from a larger supply, that regardless where you are in the chain that leads to the individual sale of the drug, you are a part of the bigger picture and is just as guilty as the seller as the guy who smuggled it or grew it in mass quantities for distribution.
and I already stated who I believe the victims are in the drug trade.
Large scale coke/heroin manufacture is so far removed from the OP it isn't really worth talking about IMO.
That's not the point of the thread.
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.