[quote=TheWire]I think you're making a false correlation between "drug" use and being a loser who mooches off of society.
Different drugs have different correlations, you can't generalize all illegal drugs like that. For example, the upper-class and wealthy have extremely high rates of cocaine use, yet they contribute to society immensely and pay far more taxes.
I don't want this to turn into a weed debate, but weed is relatively harmless. I think the drugs you are referring to are crack, meth, heroin, oxy (which is legal), and the like. These drugs probably do have significant negative impacts on ones life, but there are also people who have jobs and are contributing members of society who use these drugs. Likewise there are people who don't use any drugs but are on welfare mooching off of society. It simply isn't a causal relationship.
You're also making a logical fallacy because you're saying drugs use leads to being an unemployed loser, when it could easily be the other way around, being an unemployed loser could lead to drug use.
The people you know who messed up their lives in high school or wherever because of drugs, blaming the drugs is like a scapegoat to blame their problems on. They were probably messed up and lacked motivation and direction in life prior to the drug use already.[/quote]
I don't have a problem with people using drugs (though it is stupid and even pot has risks, albeit it's not as dangerous as some on the media would have you believe, it's still about as bad as smoking a cigarette, and can lead to memory loss). My problem is with people who use drugs or smoke and then complain that someone should pay for their healthcare (and everything else in their life). This is a free country, and being free means being allowed to do things that are bad for you (as long as you don't intrude on the rights of others; i.e. drinking and driving should still be illegal because you become a risk to others), but you can't do things that jeopardize your health then demand someone else cover the costs, that's not 'freedom'.
[quote=TheWire]"Drugs" is such a broad term, there are people who are addicted to legal drugs (in fact more people die every year from prescription drugs than from illegal drugs).
@FightTheWar Okay I get what you're saying: if you're going to purposefully harm your body then you should be responsible financially for the negative consequences. But that is such an overarching generalization and it fails to take into account a host of different issues. There is no feasible way to draw the line and decide when is it to far, or what actions are deemed more socially irresponsible than other actions. It also totally neglects the mental illness and addiction aspect to what many drug addicts face.
Often times those who are hurting their bodies using substances are suffering from depression, anxiety, and they aren't making a reasonable choice to do so, they are doing so because they are addicted. Throwing them all into one category is ignorant.
And you still haven't addressed the point I made about people who play extreme sports and people who eat unhealthy. Are you going to punish them as well?[/quote]
I've been kind of depressed lately because something I wanted and worked very hard for was taken away due to budget cuts (yet the government can still afford to give welfare checks to bums and keep drug users locked up). Somehow, despite my sadness, I've never considered trying any illegal drugs and neither would anyone else with common sense. I've seen this a lot; it typically starts in high school (or younger) kids want to rebel and try drugs so they can be more 'gangsta' then they ruin their lives (or at least don't advance anywhere) and complain that the government should be looking out for them and making sure they become successful (at the cost of other successful people if necessary). The way I see it, anyone at an Occupy rally who's used drugs even once is a loser.
[quote=TheWire]Lmao you don't use advil or tylenol when you get a headache?
You don't take cold medicine when you have a cold?
You don't take anti-biotics if your doctor says it'll save your life?
Yeah, I guess you're not the moron.[/quote]
-facepalm- ... Seriously ...? lol. If you're calling someone a moron, then how is it that someone as smart as you doesn't already know what type of drugs he's referring to.
[quote=TheWire]You're being biased in favor of alcohol. The reality is that most people who drink don't drink in "moderation", I know hundreds of people who drink, and not one drinks in moderation. Everyone binge drinks especially when they're of partying and clubbing age. Likewise, I know many people who smoke and most of them smoke in moderation. You claim that drinking in moderation doesn't have harmful side effects, that is true if you're drinking 1 drink a day. But the same argument from moderation can be made about any substances, studies have shown smoking no more than 2 cigarettes a day has little significant impact on your health.
And it seems to me you agree that [b]any[/b] action someone does to jeopardize their own health shouldn't be supported by taxpayers. If you hold that position then you would have to agree that firefighters, police officers, professional athletes (all of whom are at a higher risk of injury; thus a larger burden on society's tax dollars) are all equally responsible than someone who smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day and gets lung cancer.
Also, I bet you're a hypocrite. I guarantee you don't exercise every day and I guarantee you don't have a perfect diet. I bet you drink soda and eat unhealthy foods on occasion. I guess you don't deserve medical treatment.[/quote]
To answer your last statement, I DO exercise (frequently) and my diet is not perfect, but it's better than most people and I do occasionally binge drink. Of course, seeing as how I'm also not demanding tax payers cover my healthcare, even if I was a lazy slob who used drugs I wouldn't be a hypocrite. I NEVER said people who did drugs/ruined their health shouldn't get medical treatment, I only said that they should be the ones paying for it, not taxpayers. If someone wants to ruin their health and are willing to pay for it they should be perfectly free to do so. My problem is with people who go out and ruin their health and then demand someone else (typically rich people who work hard) pay for their healthcare costs. Police officers and Firefighters (and people in the military) must maintain a certain level of physical fitness (which also reduces their healthcare costs) and if they actually do get injured in the line of duty, they should be cared for because they're actually doing something noble; they're jeopardizing their safety (and lives) to protect others, and the least we can do is care for the ones who do get injured. If you are telling me someone who uses heroin and develops health problems (or even someone who smokes 2 packs a day for 20 years as you put it) is as noble as a military member who was injured in a suicide bomb attack, you really are out of touch with reality.
[quote=TheWire]Alright using your logic I guess we shouldn't be paying taxes to pay for people who have injuries playing extreme sports and people who eat McDonalds since they too are putting a huge burden on the healthcare system.
Also I find your argument very ignorant considering that the two drugs that do the most damage to health costs and to society are both legal (Alcohol and Cigarettes) yet you're afraid of illegal drugs? lol?[/quote]
My argument is simple; nobody should be forced to pay for the cost of healthcare for people who don't put any effort into staying healthy. The reason healthcare costs in the United States are so expensive is because we have a nation of overweight people who think they HAVE to eat McDonald's (seriously, the guy who sued McDonald's for being overweight is a loser, and I'll tell you right now it wasn't even about him being overweight; he just wanted free money). If more Americans were collectively smart they'd NEVER smoke or do drugs and would drink alcohol in moderation (which is actually proven to have health benefits) and would exercise; that would bring down the cost of healthcare, and it would be more ethical to have tax money support people under those circumstances. Seriously, I've seen people who smoke demand free healthcare; how selfish is it to demand that taxpayers cover your cost of healthcare when you deliberately do something that will cause your healthcare costs to go up? Honestly, I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs; not because I want to use them, but because people who are stupid enough to use them should be allowed to ruin their health and die younger so we don't have to pay for their social security or medicare. We should keep drug education classes in schools and give people fair warning at an early age of what will happen if you use drugs, and the people who choose to ignore those warnings...well...this is a perfect example of social Darwinism.
[quote=marioz]Has anybody heard anything intelligent or cohesive come out of the Occupy Wall Street movement so far? And do these people actually have a plan of action or do they just sit around in a park being angry all day waiting for change to magically happen? It's a shame that they are making a mockery out of what COULD be a serious challenge to corporate greed and government corruption.[/quote]
A serious challenge to corporate greed and government corruption? You mean like the TEA Party?
[quote=TheWire]Lmao you don't use advil or tylenol when you get a headache?
You don't take cold medicine when you have a cold?
You don't take anti-biotics if your doctor says it'll save your life?
Yeah, I guess you're not the moron.[/quote]
You know what 'drugs' I was referring to: illegal drugs (and certain legal ones such as cigarettes). If you smoke or have done illegal drugs then you're making an incredibly stupid choice. Albeit, as a libertarian I believe you should be allowed to make those choices, but don't expect people like me who work for a living to pay higher taxes to cover your healthcare costs or guarantee you a job when your own choices led to many of the problems you have.
[quote=ClementZ]A refugee implies homelessness, so the use of both terms is redundant.
Technicality, aside, the comparison can't be made between a close nit faction of a political party, and a bunch of strangers with common interests. The bunch of strangers cannot support anyone or push anyone to be elected to Congress; no candidate from either the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party strongly sympathizes with the protesters. And even if they did, the protesters would be rather powerless, seeing as the majority of them are poor (which is a reason for why they protest)
As for the constant filth, and general disorder that you are describing, why didn't you ask? You [b]were[/b] at some of these protests, weren't you?[/quote]
I was there, but I wasn't actually one of the protesters. I just wanted a free and open exchange of ideas with the protesters, and many were more than willing to take me on in a polite and civil debate (though most of them, it turned out, didn't actually know what their positions were....they just knew that rich people should be paying more taxes?) Some people though, were not very happy with my presence. It was pretty funny hearing them say mean things to me; one person said I wasn't allowed to be near her and that I had to 'stand across the street for my protest'. So funny.
A refugee implies homelessness, so the use of both terms is redundant.
Technicality, aside, the comparison can't be made between a close nit faction of a political party, and a bunch of strangers with common interests. The bunch of strangers cannot support anyone or push anyone to be elected to Congress; no candidate from either the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party strongly sympathizes with the protesters. And even if they did, the protesters would be rather powerless, seeing as the majority of them are poor (which is a reason for why they protest)
As for the constant filth, and general disorder that you are describing, why didn't you ask? You [b]were[/b] at some of these protests, weren't you?
[quote=MarxMaster]That's because there are going to be homeless people with nowhere else to go, and of course they're gonna join in on the protest because it's in their self-interest.
I've actually been to a local occupy protest in person. There are plenty of homeless people there.[/quote]
I went to Occupy Protests too and I agree. Apparently many of the homeless people there didn't like me very much (one of them said 'I know what you stand for!' when he heard me using military terminology, even though I never even tried to provoke him, just told the protesters my opinions and listened to theirs).
17 Comments • Newest first
[quote=TheWire]I think you're making a false correlation between "drug" use and being a loser who mooches off of society.
Different drugs have different correlations, you can't generalize all illegal drugs like that. For example, the upper-class and wealthy have extremely high rates of cocaine use, yet they contribute to society immensely and pay far more taxes.
I don't want this to turn into a weed debate, but weed is relatively harmless. I think the drugs you are referring to are crack, meth, heroin, oxy (which is legal), and the like. These drugs probably do have significant negative impacts on ones life, but there are also people who have jobs and are contributing members of society who use these drugs. Likewise there are people who don't use any drugs but are on welfare mooching off of society. It simply isn't a causal relationship.
You're also making a logical fallacy because you're saying drugs use leads to being an unemployed loser, when it could easily be the other way around, being an unemployed loser could lead to drug use.
The people you know who messed up their lives in high school or wherever because of drugs, blaming the drugs is like a scapegoat to blame their problems on. They were probably messed up and lacked motivation and direction in life prior to the drug use already.[/quote]
I don't have a problem with people using drugs (though it is stupid and even pot has risks, albeit it's not as dangerous as some on the media would have you believe, it's still about as bad as smoking a cigarette, and can lead to memory loss). My problem is with people who use drugs or smoke and then complain that someone should pay for their healthcare (and everything else in their life). This is a free country, and being free means being allowed to do things that are bad for you (as long as you don't intrude on the rights of others; i.e. drinking and driving should still be illegal because you become a risk to others), but you can't do things that jeopardize your health then demand someone else cover the costs, that's not 'freedom'.
[quote=TheWire]"Drugs" is such a broad term, there are people who are addicted to legal drugs (in fact more people die every year from prescription drugs than from illegal drugs).
@FightTheWar Okay I get what you're saying: if you're going to purposefully harm your body then you should be responsible financially for the negative consequences. But that is such an overarching generalization and it fails to take into account a host of different issues. There is no feasible way to draw the line and decide when is it to far, or what actions are deemed more socially irresponsible than other actions. It also totally neglects the mental illness and addiction aspect to what many drug addicts face.
Often times those who are hurting their bodies using substances are suffering from depression, anxiety, and they aren't making a reasonable choice to do so, they are doing so because they are addicted. Throwing them all into one category is ignorant.
And you still haven't addressed the point I made about people who play extreme sports and people who eat unhealthy. Are you going to punish them as well?[/quote]
I've been kind of depressed lately because something I wanted and worked very hard for was taken away due to budget cuts (yet the government can still afford to give welfare checks to bums and keep drug users locked up). Somehow, despite my sadness, I've never considered trying any illegal drugs and neither would anyone else with common sense. I've seen this a lot; it typically starts in high school (or younger) kids want to rebel and try drugs so they can be more 'gangsta' then they ruin their lives (or at least don't advance anywhere) and complain that the government should be looking out for them and making sure they become successful (at the cost of other successful people if necessary). The way I see it, anyone at an Occupy rally who's used drugs even once is a loser.
[quote=TheWire]Lmao you don't use advil or tylenol when you get a headache?
You don't take cold medicine when you have a cold?
You don't take anti-biotics if your doctor says it'll save your life?
Yeah, I guess you're not the moron.[/quote]
-facepalm- ... Seriously ...? lol. If you're calling someone a moron, then how is it that someone as smart as you doesn't already know what type of drugs he's referring to.
[quote=TheWire]You're being biased in favor of alcohol. The reality is that most people who drink don't drink in "moderation", I know hundreds of people who drink, and not one drinks in moderation. Everyone binge drinks especially when they're of partying and clubbing age. Likewise, I know many people who smoke and most of them smoke in moderation. You claim that drinking in moderation doesn't have harmful side effects, that is true if you're drinking 1 drink a day. But the same argument from moderation can be made about any substances, studies have shown smoking no more than 2 cigarettes a day has little significant impact on your health.
And it seems to me you agree that [b]any[/b] action someone does to jeopardize their own health shouldn't be supported by taxpayers. If you hold that position then you would have to agree that firefighters, police officers, professional athletes (all of whom are at a higher risk of injury; thus a larger burden on society's tax dollars) are all equally responsible than someone who smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day and gets lung cancer.
Also, I bet you're a hypocrite. I guarantee you don't exercise every day and I guarantee you don't have a perfect diet. I bet you drink soda and eat unhealthy foods on occasion. I guess you don't deserve medical treatment.[/quote]
To answer your last statement, I DO exercise (frequently) and my diet is not perfect, but it's better than most people and I do occasionally binge drink. Of course, seeing as how I'm also not demanding tax payers cover my healthcare, even if I was a lazy slob who used drugs I wouldn't be a hypocrite. I NEVER said people who did drugs/ruined their health shouldn't get medical treatment, I only said that they should be the ones paying for it, not taxpayers. If someone wants to ruin their health and are willing to pay for it they should be perfectly free to do so. My problem is with people who go out and ruin their health and then demand someone else (typically rich people who work hard) pay for their healthcare costs. Police officers and Firefighters (and people in the military) must maintain a certain level of physical fitness (which also reduces their healthcare costs) and if they actually do get injured in the line of duty, they should be cared for because they're actually doing something noble; they're jeopardizing their safety (and lives) to protect others, and the least we can do is care for the ones who do get injured. If you are telling me someone who uses heroin and develops health problems (or even someone who smokes 2 packs a day for 20 years as you put it) is as noble as a military member who was injured in a suicide bomb attack, you really are out of touch with reality.
[quote=TheWire]Alright using your logic I guess we shouldn't be paying taxes to pay for people who have injuries playing extreme sports and people who eat McDonalds since they too are putting a huge burden on the healthcare system.
Also I find your argument very ignorant considering that the two drugs that do the most damage to health costs and to society are both legal (Alcohol and Cigarettes) yet you're afraid of illegal drugs? lol?[/quote]
My argument is simple; nobody should be forced to pay for the cost of healthcare for people who don't put any effort into staying healthy. The reason healthcare costs in the United States are so expensive is because we have a nation of overweight people who think they HAVE to eat McDonald's (seriously, the guy who sued McDonald's for being overweight is a loser, and I'll tell you right now it wasn't even about him being overweight; he just wanted free money). If more Americans were collectively smart they'd NEVER smoke or do drugs and would drink alcohol in moderation (which is actually proven to have health benefits) and would exercise; that would bring down the cost of healthcare, and it would be more ethical to have tax money support people under those circumstances. Seriously, I've seen people who smoke demand free healthcare; how selfish is it to demand that taxpayers cover your cost of healthcare when you deliberately do something that will cause your healthcare costs to go up? Honestly, I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs; not because I want to use them, but because people who are stupid enough to use them should be allowed to ruin their health and die younger so we don't have to pay for their social security or medicare. We should keep drug education classes in schools and give people fair warning at an early age of what will happen if you use drugs, and the people who choose to ignore those warnings...well...this is a perfect example of social Darwinism.
[quote=marioz]Has anybody heard anything intelligent or cohesive come out of the Occupy Wall Street movement so far? And do these people actually have a plan of action or do they just sit around in a park being angry all day waiting for change to magically happen? It's a shame that they are making a mockery out of what COULD be a serious challenge to corporate greed and government corruption.[/quote]
A serious challenge to corporate greed and government corruption? You mean like the TEA Party?
[quote=TheWire]Lmao you don't use advil or tylenol when you get a headache?
You don't take cold medicine when you have a cold?
You don't take anti-biotics if your doctor says it'll save your life?
Yeah, I guess you're not the moron.[/quote]
You know what 'drugs' I was referring to: illegal drugs (and certain legal ones such as cigarettes). If you smoke or have done illegal drugs then you're making an incredibly stupid choice. Albeit, as a libertarian I believe you should be allowed to make those choices, but don't expect people like me who work for a living to pay higher taxes to cover your healthcare costs or guarantee you a job when your own choices led to many of the problems you have.
Some of the people in Occupy T.O were just.. Awful...
Basil cynicism is killing me.
[quote=metaghost3]People still talk about OWS? [i]That's so late 2011...[/i][/quote]
Yeah, but with the election coming up it wouldn't surprise me if we saw more of them.
[quote=ClementZ]A refugee implies homelessness, so the use of both terms is redundant.
Technicality, aside, the comparison can't be made between a close nit faction of a political party, and a bunch of strangers with common interests.
The bunch of strangers cannot support anyone or push anyone to be elected to Congress; no candidate from either the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party strongly sympathizes with the protesters. And even if they did, the protesters would be rather powerless, seeing as the majority of them are poor (which is a reason for why they protest)
As for the constant filth, and general disorder that you are describing, why didn't you ask?
You [b]were[/b] at some of these protests, weren't you?[/quote]
I was there, but I wasn't actually one of the protesters. I just wanted a free and open exchange of ideas with the protesters, and many were more than willing to take me on in a polite and civil debate (though most of them, it turned out, didn't actually know what their positions were....they just knew that rich people should be paying more taxes?) Some people though, were not very happy with my presence. It was pretty funny hearing them say mean things to me; one person said I wasn't allowed to be near her and that I had to 'stand across the street for my protest'. So funny.
A refugee implies homelessness, so the use of both terms is redundant.
Technicality, aside, the comparison can't be made between a close nit faction of a political party, and a bunch of strangers with common interests.
The bunch of strangers cannot support anyone or push anyone to be elected to Congress; no candidate from either the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party strongly sympathizes with the protesters. And even if they did, the protesters would be rather powerless, seeing as the majority of them are poor (which is a reason for why they protest)
As for the constant filth, and general disorder that you are describing, why didn't you ask?
You [b]were[/b] at some of these protests, weren't you?
people still care about occupy? that's liek 12 years ago with kony and sopa
[quote=TwistedNatur]Hobos are crazy sometimes. kinda interesting to hear how they became homeless.[/quote]
Edit: that was weird... why did it post twice?
they attract homeless because their message is simply, "rich people suck."
imo a good protest movement needs a strict objective like getting rid of a single piece of legislation. OWS was too unfocused.
[quote=TwistedNatur]Hobos are crazy sometimes. kinda interesting to hear how they became homeless.[/quote]
What's interesting is how it often involves drugs. God, like I've always said; only morons would actually use drugs.
[quote=MarxMaster]That's because there are going to be homeless people with nowhere else to go, and of course they're gonna join in on the protest because it's in their self-interest.
I've actually been to a local occupy protest in person. There are plenty of homeless people there.[/quote]
I went to Occupy Protests too and I agree. Apparently many of the homeless people there didn't like me very much (one of them said 'I know what you stand for!' when he heard me using military terminology, even though I never even tried to provoke him, just told the protesters my opinions and listened to theirs).