Best SOTU in living memory


anatess2
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Godless said:

People don't buy drugs the way they buy, beer, cigarettes, or ibuprofen. Buying more than a few doses is both very expensive and very risky.

All the more reason to stock up; minimizing transport risk.  Assuming one isn't a complete idiot, checks vehicle equipment and generally obeys traffic laws, one trip with six months worth is vastly safer than 180 trips carrying just enough for that day. 

19 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Really?  At this point all I have left to say to you:  It is impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who insists on being irrational.

Good to see you've finally looked in the mirror.  Rational folks don't believe that possibly selling a product to people who seek it out is five times worse than attempted murder, no matter how many times it's done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Really?  At this point all I have left to say to you:  It is impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who insists on being irrational.

Indeed.  One might buy 250 pills of ibuprofen, but one doesn’t usually then carry all 250 of them on one’s person during a subsequent quick trip to Wal-Mart.

There’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and then there’s “inapposite, looney-tunes arguments concocted by someone who has a natural antipathy against cops”.  Thankfully, juries can usually tell the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
6 minutes ago, NightSG said:

All the more reason to stock up; minimizing transport risk. 

Again, drugs ain't cheap. And @Just_A_Guy is right, even if someone can afford to buy bulk, a simple user isn't keeping it all on their person.

6 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Assuming one isn't a complete idiot, checks vehicle equipment and generally obeys traffic laws, one trip with six months worth is vastly safer than 180 trips carrying just enough for that day. 

You're giving drug addicts way too much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NightSG said:

All the more reason to stock up; minimizing transport risk.  Assuming one isn't a complete idiot, checks vehicle equipment and generally obeys traffic laws, one trip with six months worth is vastly safer than 180 trips carrying just enough for that day.

The upshot here is this tells us that you've never actually been directly involved in buying illegal drugs.

You're making a couple of assumptions here that aren't warranted, brother.

  • The kind of reasoning you're using isn't happening in the mind of somebody addicted to the hard stuff.  A pothead might do that with weed, maybe... but  do you really think a heroin addict, meth head or crack addict is going to sit there and calculate how many doses he'll need over the next couple of weeks and make sure to buy enough to cover it?
  • Expense, expense, expense.  Buying a bottle of a couple hundred ibuprofen isn't even in the same order of magnitude of the cost of an equivalent stockpile of anything illegal.  What gives you the impression they could afford it?  In the latter stages of addiction we're talking about somebody who can't hold down a job, which m eans if they're getting money at all it's either form somebody enabling them or they're stealing/selling something to raise funds.  Afford large quantities?  I think not.
  • So the user goes up to the dealer, and says "I want to buy a big stockpile!"  The dealer will assume the user plans to start his own little business and ain't gonna sell.  In fact, that's a good way to get killed.
  • A user knows if he's caught with those kinds of amounts, he's gonna get charged with possession with intent to distribute.
  • So you're envisioning a person who's addicted to meth saying "I'd better pace myself, this needs to last!"  Yeah... that's gone in a weekend.

@mirkwood, is that about right or am I way off base?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Good to see you've finally looked in the mirror.  Rational folks don't believe that possibly selling a product to people who seek it out is five times worse than attempted murder, no matter how many times it's done. 

First, that isn’t @mirkwood‘s argument.  His argument is merely that people don’t go to prison for mere possession of illicit drugs.  You are the one who brought up this apparent attempted murder case as a straw-man perversion of Mirkwood’s argument once he and I showed that your counter-example was not in fact an isolated case of mere possession.  

Second, at sentencing judges punish the person, not just the crime.  That’s why prosecutors bring up criminal history at sentencing; and it’s why defense attorneys bring in weeping wives and children and trot out stories about how Guido—for all his faults—was always kind to animals, helped little old ladies across the street, and  donated to the local PTA bake sale.  There’s certainly a philosophical argument to be made that we *shouldn’t* look at mitigating or exacerbating character evidence during sentencing; but that’s not how the system currently works.  And under the status quo yes, there are going to be startling apparent incongruities; because casual bystanders going off a 280-word article can’t possibly know the nuances and intricacies of a case the way the judge and jury do.  Some of those incongruities may even be objectively wrong—but again, in most cases neither we nor the news writers who shape our opinions have anything like enough information to say that with any degree of certitude.  

I don’t know what went into this (thus-far hypothetical) attempted murderer’s getting such a light sentence; and frankly, given your strategic concealment on the Texas drug case you brought up, it’s going to be a while before I’m prepared to give much credence to any fact pattern you may hereafter describe. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Rational folks don't believe that possibly selling a product to people who seek it out is five times worse than attempted murder, no matter how many times it's done. 

You don't even have to go to the Philippines to see how selling drugs, especially to kids, wipes out an entire town's worth of productive population for one generation - you can just go to Jackson Country, Missouri.  The damage is devastating.  I have 3 cousins that was victimized by it 2 decades ago.  We pooled our resources to send them to rehab.  They got cleaned up.  Then one day, one of them was peacefully walking to her school when her friend talked her into thinking there was no hope for her and she should just take a hit - for free.  She resisted for a few weeks until she was in a low point and she took the free hit.  Just one and that was that... she was back in it.   All 3 cousins had to go to Rehab twice.  And we learned Rehab is not enough if the drugs are still in town.  They had to LEAVE town.  All 3 cousins are clean now but one cousin has permanent brain damage from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

. . . Whereas you, on the other hand . . . 

:cop: :popcorn:

Hehe well played.

Happily, hard drugs have never been a part of my life or the lives of anybody I know.  Some smoke/have smoked weed but at this point it almost doesn't feel like it counts, by comparison.  (IMHO alcohol is far more of a scourge.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the first two seasons of Breaking Bad - that means I know at least as much as Mirkwood.  😁

Honestly though, if you find yourself on the losing end of conversations like this, and you'd like to discover some of what you don't know about the realities of drug use in the US, you might want to consider watching that show.  It is full of horribleness, your soul will be weighted down, your testimony might be challenged, and your eyes might be a bit opened.  You can stop after the episode where we see the kid living in the crack house, and the business with the ATM machine.

The baptismal covenant is that we bear one another's burdens that they might be light.  Knowing these realities are absolutely a burden.  It means the sun shines a bit less brightly, the grass is slightly less green, and the laughter of children is harder to enjoy.  But if you are willing to share the burden of knowledge, everyone else so-burdened won't have to spend energy countering your asinine arguments and fighting against asinine laws and agendas based on ignorance. 

(Using "you" in the general sense here.  I've posted this general argument in multiple places for several years now.)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I watched the first two seasons of Breaking Bad - that means I know at least as much as Mirkwood.  😁

Honestly though, if you find yourself on the losing end of conversations like this, and you'd like to discover some of what you don't know about the realities of drug use in the US, you might want to consider watching that show. 

That's a fictional show.  There are all kinds of documentaries about this.  This is a snapshot of one of them:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You'd be amazed how many drug addicts can cover their addiction the way @NightSG is describing. 

I'm aware. But I also know there's a lot of idiots out there, especially when you start getting into harder drugs. One of my friends in high school would have been class valedictorian if MPs hadn't found weed in his locker. I doubt there are many heroin or meth addicts who can say the same. And any addicts who may have been intelligent and rational before getting addicted are going to be considerably less so after using for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2019 at 1:49 PM, Tyme said:

There needs to be a blend between emotion and logic for any good solution. I discount the argument that emotion shouldn’t play a part. 

 

On 2/11/2019 at 1:51 PM, Grunt said:

No there doesn't.  Emotion isn't an argument.  Facts are.

 

On 2/11/2019 at 2:30 PM, Tyme said:

That whole argument is based on feelings and emotions.

It always amazes me that Latter-day Saints on this forum are so against emotions. The church teaches you to believe based on feelings rather than logic.   That is expressly what the missionaries teach to investigators. It seems like pure hypocrisy to only use feelings when it fits you. I don’t know how you guys compartmentalize politics and religion.

 

On 2/11/2019 at 2:34 PM, Grunt said:

You keep saying that, but that's not true.  I'm not against emotions.  I LOVE emotions.  However, everyone is emotional in different ways over different things.  Therefore, it's impractical for the State to legislate based on emotions.  

Its my belief that facts, by themselves, are neutral. What counts in most decision making processes, including legislative processes, are how we feel about the facts, and how much, and what sort of values and importance, we place on particular facts or sets of facts. And it’s a very unwise legislator who bases all their decision solely on the facts of a matter without considering how their constituents feel. It’s also often the case that the decisions we make about what facts to include, and what facts to exclude, in making our argument, and where and how we use facts in constructing an argument, are often based on emotion. It is often the case that we come to a position that we feel comfortable with, and then arrange the facts to support our position. I think that many people, when making a decision, will say something like, ok, here are the facts, now how do I feel about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

 

 

 

Its my belief that facts, by themselves, are neutral. What counts in most decision making processes, including legislative processes, are how we feel about the facts, and how much, and what sort of values and importance, we place on particular facts or sets of facts. And it’s a very unwise legislator who bases all their decision solely on the facts of a matter without considering how their constituents feel. It’s also often the case that the decisions we make about what facts to include, and what facts to exclude, in making our argument, and where and how we use facts in constructing an argument, are often based on emotion. It is often the case that we come to a position that we feel comfortable with, and then arrange the facts to support our position. I think that many people, when making a decision, will say something like, ok, here are the facts, now how do I feel about this. 

That's fine, but how YOU feel about it isn't the same as how someone else may feel about it.  Facts matter, emotion doesn't.   You lay out a set of consistent truths and legislate accordingly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2019 at 3:13 PM, anatess2 said:

I'm going to put my 2 cents...

I believe Prison should not be used for "vengeance" but done for the safety and security of society including the offender (preventing him from succumbing to the same weakness).  I believe that the Prison should be a place for rehabilitation.  In the case of Bernie Madoff, there is no reason for him to have had a lifetime sentence.  Being able to con people into giving him all your money is only effective when you don't know the guy is a conman.  Bernie Madoff, stipped of all his assets, and with a requirement to publicize any business holdings he owns or manages would be sufficient to prevent him from doing what he did again.

By the way, my husband and I can argue about prisons the entire drive from coast to coast.

I believe that rehabilitation seldom occurs with multiple offenders.  We have a great problem with gun violence and we are in need of gun control laws that will define any multiple cases of gun violence as a federal capitol offence carried out by a robotic firing squad.  Not as a punishment but as a deterrent to gun violence and to end the continuance of the same from multiple offenders.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Traveler said:

We have a great problem with gun violence   

Qualify gun violence and qualify Great.

Do you consider people killing themselves using a firearm gun violence?

Do you consider people accidentally discharging firearms as gun violence?

What would you consider Great?  Because if you take out suicide and accidental discharges and other deaths/injuries caused by firearms that are not of criminal intent, you slash the rate down by 2/3.

 

Quote

and we are in need of gun control laws that will define any multiple cases of gun violence as a federal capitol offence carried out by a robotic firing squad. 

Robotic firing squad?  So, lethal injection is not enough, it has to be robotic firing squad?  Dead is dead, I thought.

How about multiple cases of poison violence?  How about multiple cases of blunt instrument violence?  How about multiple cases of domestic abuse violence?  What special criminal super power do you have to have to garner the super villain retribution dispenser, the robotic firing squad?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 6:02 PM, askandanswer said:

Its my belief that facts, by themselves, are neutral. What counts in most decision making processes, including legislative processes, are how we feel about the facts, and how much, and what sort of values and importance, we place on particular facts or sets of facts. And it’s a very unwise legislator who bases all their decision solely on the facts of a matter without considering how their constituents feel. It’s also often the case that the decisions we make about what facts to include, and what facts to exclude, in making our argument, and where and how we use facts in constructing an argument, are often based on emotion. It is often the case that we come to a position that we feel comfortable with, and then arrange the facts to support our position. I think that many people, when making a decision, will say something like, ok, here are the facts, now how do I feel about this. 

Yes, facts are neutral.  That's why, in a society where FREEDOM is the natural order, you legislate by facts and not by emotion.  Government is a controlling body - it regulates freedom.  It shouldn't be designed by emotion.  Government should be RESTRICTED to facts so that the people can be free to express their emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, facts are neutral.  That's why, in a society where FREEDOM is the natural order, you legislate by facts and not by emotion.  Government is a controlling body - it regulates freedom.  It shouldn't be designed by emotion.  Government should be RESTRICTED to facts so that the people can be free to express their emotions.

One of the most common methods of electioneering here is scaremongering. This involves a party or a candidate coming up with a list of statements, which might or might not be facts, and which often have the appearance of facts, and then repeating these statements to your target audience, not to educate them as to what the facts of a matter are, but to generate a feeling - fear. Another common method of electioneering here is feel good politics. This involves a party or a candidate coming up with a list of statements which might or might not be facts, and which often have the appearance of facts, and might even contain some facts, and then repeating those statements to your target audience, not to educate them as to what the facts of a matter are, but to generate a feeling -  a good feeling. People then make decisions based on those feelings, and decision makers respond to the feelings, not the facts, being expressed. Another common example of when feelings trump facts in political decision making processes is the common practice of holding focus groups. You get a bunch of people together and present them with certain statements, and then observe and analyse their emotional reaction to those statements. You repeat the process often enough and you come up some ideas on what your political platform should be, based on people's emotional reactions, and if things work as they should, the platform then gets turned into policies and then implemented through programs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Qualify gun violence and qualify Great.

Do you consider people killing themselves using a firearm gun violence?

Do you consider people accidentally discharging firearms as gun violence?

What would you consider Great?  Because if you take out suicide and accidental discharges and other deaths/injuries caused by firearms that are not of criminal intent, you slash the rate down by 2/3.

 

Robotic firing squad?  So, lethal injection is not enough, it has to be robotic firing squad?  Dead is dead, I thought.

How about multiple cases of poison violence?  How about multiple cases of blunt instrument violence?  How about multiple cases of domestic abuse violence?  What special criminal super power do you have to have to garner the super villain retribution dispenser, the robotic firing squad?

I consider premeditated deliberate use of a gun in an effort to commit a crime as gun violence.  I believe that accidentally discharging a firearm would be a crime - but it is obviously not a premeditated deliberate use of a gun to commit a crime.   The stats you are quoting concern deaths and injuries is only a tip of the iceberg.  I say the problem is great for two reasons - One is that a firearm is a deadly lethal weapon that is used too often by criminal elements.  The second is that there is so much fear over the criminal elements use of firearms that many law abiding citizens have become pons in the political debate over the 2nd Amendment.  The only way to deter the illegal use of firearms is to increase the deterrent and minimize the perceived benefit (glamorization) of firearm use to commit crimes. 

A robotic firing squad is a deterrent that fits the crime.  Without deterrents crimes will continue (by definition).  I am a believer in incentives as a means to alter behaviors - if you are concerned (including political concern) then I will honor your request to consider other crimes.  But for now when political views are brought to the table to question second amendment rights of law abiding citizens under the idea of gun control laws - I suggest that we oblige their concern with effective deterrents aimed specifically at the criminal concern that is not a threat to those with respect for the law.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share