Ah, I get it. No more meth, no more unleashing murderous rage on a little boy again. Correlation/causation fallacy. First indication one is evaluating based on external conditioning rather than thought and logic. 
Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
And it would be in the best interest to those around him also. So, if you make some facility where it would be legal to do hard drugs if the users were locked in rooms where they could not get out and harm anyone while high, I would be fine with that.
Excellent point. The pro-legalization ideologues are not arguing about Constitutional issues, but rather they are advocating moral-liberal arguments for legalization, period.
Yikes!
Ah, I get it. No more meth, no more unleashing murderous rage on a little boy again. Correlation/causation fallacy. First indication one is evaluating based on external conditioning rather than thought and logic.
I'd be fine with it too so long as it's voluntary and so long as the facility is funded with private money.
So the relative convenience to you and to others personally should be the sole criteria whether something should be tolerated or not tolerated? You would allow consensual gladiator fights to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize on consensual pay-per-view? There are enough poor people in the world who would consent to such a risk for such a reward. Clearly, the moral-liberal vision for the world is one of a dark age where only the strong and the rich will survive, while the poor, the artless, the powerless, the infirm, the innocent, and the elderly will not fare very well indeed.
No, not the convenience. Work is less convenient than theft but theft should not be tolerated because it violates rights. Work does not. So, the criteria by which to determine what is, and isn't, allowed is wether or not it violates rights.
You would allow consensual gladiator fights to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize on consensual pay-per-view?
If two people are foolish enough to consent to such a match then the consequences would be theirs alone to bear. You would be free to protest on the sidewalk and pass out if you wished.
...the moral-liberal vision for the world is one of a dark age where only the strong and the rich will survive, while the poor, the artless, the powerless, the infirm, the innocent, and the elderly will not fare very well indeed.
What you've described is what we have now.
The world I envision is one where rights are respected, both of people and property, where no one can use government to plunder his neighbor, and where people are free to enjoy the rewards that come with making responsible decisions in life, while the people who make irresponsible decisions can no longer force others to share in the consequences.
Yep.
"Yep."
Hence the "medicinal" argument for wanting to help sick people is really just subterfuge and dissembling.
And yet the repercussions of evil affect more than just the guilty. Try to tell a child born with AIDS or a blood transfusion patient that homosexuality only affects those who engage in it. Try to tell a woman who was raped that pornography just affects those who consume it. Try to tell a child growing up in a broken home with a broken heart how harmless adultery is to him or her. We all pay for the consequences of other's sins. That is why there is no such thing as a 'harmless immorality.'
And very thin.
Oh yeah? Well, if drugs were "de-criminalized", and this stupid War on Drugs was ended
Nevermind.
I don't think anyone is claiming that drugs are an excuse for any crime, weikel. No one is allowed to commit murder with impunity while drunk and claim they had no knowledge of what they were doing, because no one forces anyone to get drunk. Every addict at some point consents to become an addict. Sure, the man is going to prison for 25 years (translation: 10 years with good behavior) not because he was consuming crank, but because of the harm he caused to the boy. The drug wasn't even an issue to the prosecution, just to the defense (I am assuming). Really, though, your point is that a drug, no matter how dangerous, should be allowed to be consumed, much as a dirt-poor trash-picker from some third world country should be allowed to murder someone else on pay-per-view.
On condition they both consented to a death match.
Consenting to sin is not an excuse to allow it. Sitting by and allowing other people to destroy themselves just as long as *I* don't have to pay a dime for their wounds or burials really causes the whole idea of human rights to teeter at the brink, as there are thieves, rapists, and murderers who likewise think other people's lives are valueless except as entertainment, and that mind-set cannot co-exist with human rights. You champion the alleged rights of people to use meth and die only at the risk of your own right to vote, to own guns, to a fair and speedy trial, or to worship and speak as you wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.