Victimless crime

"

Jennik wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

I think its terrible as well. But there are things in your own society that are just as equally, if not more terrible. And collectively we turn a blind eye on it. Millions of lives are ruined every year from our own laws which persecute and convict people of victimless crimes. Millions more than the number whom are stoned for homosexuality.

Where is your vegan ethics when it comes to your own culture, hmm?

Oh dang, I forgot to reply to the bit of nonsense that came next.

Nonesense? Perhaps instead of attacking, you should elaborate on what you believe, specific disagreements and why. Your hostility is very much not what i would consider ethical.

"

Jennik wrote:

My vegan values are exactly the same when it comes to my own culture. Again, you are presuming to know a hell of a lot more about me than you actually do.

I think you misunderstood what i was talking about.

I assumed that you would want to alleviate pain and suffering in your own culture. My intentions are to point out suffering in our own culture, so that you can fight that... instead of joining the national bandwagoning that's going on right now... which in my mind only serves to build a wall between 'us' and 'them'. Dividing the world, rather than bringing it together.

"

Jennik wrote:

I am not a fan of unnecessary suffering regardless of the species. I am not a fan of unnecessary suffering regardless of where it happens. Why are you attacking me as if I don't care about suffering that's local to me? Why would you even believe I don't care about this? Can you quote a single thing I've said that would lead you to reasonably conclude this?

Fair enough. But were you aware of the scope of the problem america has with victimless crimes before i mentioned it? Have you done a single thing to fight against it?

"

Jennik wrote:

Please be better at drawing conclusions. What you are instead doing is fabricating your own false reality, which is very obviously not the same thing.

I apologize if i somehow hurt your feelings. I assure you it was not my intentions. I very much do try have as clear a view as possible on reality. And welcome any corrections to errors you think ive made.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Calm down man.

Why are you telling me to calm down? I'm not angry. Again, you are projecting all kinds of nonsense onto the people you're talking to. You really need to try harder to stick to actual reality when you're communicating with people.

You were also very clearly stating that I believe morality is objective. That's utter nonsense. I never said I believe that and I in fact don't believe it. You weren't simply "reiterating" that morality is not objective (as you never iterated that in the first place). You were telling me that my belief (which, again, I don't actually have) that my personal morals are objective is a flawed belief.

"

Jennik wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

Calm down man.

Why are you telling me to calm down? I'm not angry. Again, you are projecting all kinds of nonsense onto the people you're talking to. You really need to try harder to stick to actual reality when you're communicating with people.

Are you suggesting that i should not attempt to empathize and try to predict what you are thinking?

I literally meant what i said, it seemed relevant that i should point out that morality is not objective.

And please, stop referring to my comments as 'nonsense'. It is very antagonstic.

Edit: You know what? This is why I have that ignore list. People who are clearly incapable of having a rational conversation are not people I should be wasting my time with. Good day.

"

Jennik wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

Nonesense? Perhaps instead of attacking, you should elaborate on what you believe, specific disagreements and why. Your hostility is very much not what i would consider ethical.

...
You're even going to call that "hostility?" I don't buy for a second that you actually believe this. This is the kind of shit people say when they're trying incredibly hard to appear superior to the person they're talking to without having a leg to stand on. It's ridiculously dishonest.

So let me get this right, when i elaborate on my original post i get accused of the awful crime of making assumptions of what you think or some bullshit. But within hours, you make accusations that a message i wrote is not what i 'really' meant. That is called hypocrisy. You have a double standard. You expect others to follow the rules, while you do not.

"

Jennik wrote:

Let's go with it, though. Let's say we live in a reality in which you consider me calling the nonsense you spouted earlier nonsense to be an unethical act and a sign of hostility. What exactly makes it unethical? What exactly makes it hostile? Once you've answered those questions, think about what else would be unethical and hostile under these definitions. What percentage of human interaction must you now necessarily believe is unethical and hostile?

Edit: You know what? This is why I have that ignore list. People who are clearly incapable of having a rational conversation are not people I should be wasting my time with. Good day.

Upon examining your history, it seems you have repeated pattern of antagonism towards others. Often followed by the MO of publicly announcing that someone is unworthy and are ignoring them.

Again, do you see hypocrisy here. You accuse me of trying to be superior, while simultaneously accusing everyone of being inferior.

You could really do with dose of humility. Not every discussion is a battle. You dont have to win. And you dont have to throw a tantrum everytime you lose. Grow up.

I think the main thing the opening post was trying to get at is that the War on Drugs is both stupid and unethical. To which I fully agree.

"

SkyCore wrote:

In 2008, according to the Department of Justice, there were 7,308,200 persons in the US corrections system. Of which only 7.9% were guilty of violent crime, and 5.8% were guilty of property crime. To one sidedly condemn other cultures for their stance on victimless crimes without acknowledging our own issues is extraordinarily unfair.

Are you arguing that we don't lock up criminals or selling and trafficking drugs shouldn't be illegal? Let's start with whether drug abuses should be regulated or whether we should stop people from hurting themselves. If you want legal drug, you can alway stick with alcohol, caffeine and nicotine.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

In 2008, according to the Department of Justice, there were 7,308,200 persons in the US corrections system. Of which only 7.9% were guilty of violent crime, and 5.8% were guilty of property crime. To one sidedly condemn other cultures for their stance on victimless crimes without acknowledging our own issues is extraordinarily unfair.

Are you arguing that we don't lock up criminals or selling and trafficking drugs shouldn't be illegal? Let's start with whether drug abuses should be regulated or whether we should stop people from hurting themselves. If you want legal drug, you can alway stick with alcohol, caffeine and nicotine.

Two of which are probable more harmful than marijuana.

Being against homos is not a "fictional construct" it doesn't propagate the species. Even caveman or dumbest animal knows this. Finally there is no social capital (family with children). The traditional means of caring for old for eons. Homos (and single for lifers) have to rely on fleeting and soon to be bankrupted state. Good luck with that. When shit hits the fan they will die starving and alone while families take care of thier own.

That said as a libertarian I'm not against it but at the end of the day makes no logical sense. Not against weed either, again makes no sense to me but whatever makes you happy as long you are not hurting anyone but yourself. I'd legalize every drug. Prositution has a lot of emotional/physical damage and slavery keeping it on the down low and I think legal would be better even.