Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-26-2008, 11:44 PM   #31 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgd85
Hispanics are not a 'violent breed of living things', certainly not comparable to pit bulls. I don't even really think this conversation needs to go any further, if you cant see the difference I pity you. I think I will do you a favor and stop now. Have a good evening.
because you know your wrong? whether you agree with it or not, it makes complete sense why people would want to ban them. it is totally justified, as mentioned before it has already been done in some places. because you obviously disagree you just compare it to something completly unrelated and pointless, Mexicans eating children to trucks (wtf?). once you realized how stupid your comparison was you try to save grace by saying "Seriously though, quit trying to throw in stupid **** suggesting that banning mexicans, humans, or trucks is the same as banning a certain breed of violent dogs. " . then i provided you with an exact example of such a case and 'I think I will do you a favor and stop now.'. sounds like your just unwilling to accept the fact that you were WRONG.

wearing seat belts only saves someones life once in a blue moon, guess what.... they made it a law!
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 01:30 PM   #32 (permalink)
down the rabbit hole
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: the mountain called monkey
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
Alright, I will waste my time. Wearing a seatbelt shouldn't be a law. You're not infringing upon anybody else's rights by not wearing one, you're only endangering yourself.


I'm not infringing on anybody else's rights by owning a pitbull. It becomes an infringement when my pitbull attacks someone, yes, but the fact of the matter is that 99% of pitbulls don't attack people. If you make owning pitbulls illegal, what happens to all of the people who already own pitbulls? What are they supposed to do, send their dog to an animal shelter? Because some other guy's dog attacked someone? It's ridiculous. There have been several cases in the past of people choking to death on peanuts. I guess that means your right to eat peanuts should be taken away, yeah?

You're a drug user, are you not? Why do you think drugs are illegal? Well, there are many reasons, but one, of course, is because they are believed to be dangerous by many people. And to some extent, it's true. Drugs can be very dangerous, if you don't know what you're getting into. But does that mean it was right of the government to remove your right to use them, just because some other people didn't know what they were doing and hurt themselves and/or other people under the influence of those drugs? Of course not. It doesn't make sense. Similarly, it'd be illogical to ban everyone from owning pitbulls simply because a few people didn't train them properly and they became vicious.

Yes, pitbulls attacking people is a problem. Nobody's saying that it isn't. All I'm saying is that banning people from owning them is not the answer.
I will continue to banter with you, since you seem to actually go about it in a reasonable manner.

Okay let me explain this very simply put. You cannot compare peanuts to pit bulls. I know what you’re doing and it’s very clever, it’s called shock value. You want to take something very benign and silly and say "well we might as well just ban [insert absurd object here] if we are going to ban pit bulls because they harm people too". If it was only the owner of the pit bull that was getting attacked/killed and taking the risk, it would be comparable. Unfortunately for your arguments sake eating a peanut isn’t going to make some innocent child across the street choke. Once again you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Now your comment about the seatbelts, I agree that it is a personal freedom and at first glance I would agree that it is a silly unjust law. However, the reason that law is in place isn’t because you’re not allowed to risk your own life; it is a lot more complicated than that. Consider the idea that you were in a car wreck while not wearing a seatbelt and your bleeding to death. You are taken to the hospital but you don’t have insurance. Now are they supposed to say "sorry bud" and watch you die? Obviously this isn’t going to happen. So what ends up happening is other people end up paying for some dumb ass not wearing a seatbelt. They saw an easy way to reduce the cost to hospitals and generate money for the local economy so they created a law. \

As far as the drugs go, we could start a whole new thread about this. I think most of the drugs that are illegal should stay that way, with the exception of a few. Let me explain my opinion.

One of the main problems with drug scheduling is the way in which drugs were scheduled in the first place. Many of them were put into place to target certain minorities, this alone is a crime. Once the laws are in place, no politician has the balls to question their authority; who dare go against drug laws without being ostracized (thanks Barney Frank, Ron Paul, and all you other REAL politicians who represent the PEOPLE). Even when they want to, alcohol lobbyists spend assloads of money to make sure it doesn’t happen. I know your thinking “but people who smoke weed drink too”. That may be true, but what else is true is that people who smoke weed drink in much smaller quantities and in fewer occasions.

Another big problem is our mindset about drugs. In case you didn’t know, alcohol and tobacco are drugs. So the next time you see a anti drug commercial come on and tell you about the dangers off pot, followed by a commercial for “THIS BUDS FOR YOU!” recognize the hypocrisy. In fact it is not even an arguable matter; it is widely accepted that marijuana, ecstasy, LSD-25, and magic mushrooms are ALL less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. Don’t believe me? How about the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology (Recreational Drugs and their level of harm), do you believe them?

So our great American “war on drugs” (and we here in America LOVE war) has resulted in 20% of the total prison inmates, just a mere half million people (50% for marijuana alone). Well done! It only cost the country billions of dollars a year to put them there, and billions of dollars more to keep them there. Instead of spending money on unjust laws, we could save ourselves billion of dollars by taxing drugs such as marijuana. Now I know that seems strange, but think of it as something like I don’t know… say alcohol or tobacco. That way instead of yearly giving money to say Mexico, Canada, and US crime syndicates, we would be MAKING money. I have done a reasonably thorough estimate on the exact number solely based on marijuana a few months ago, and came up with a $15 billion dollar flip flop with a margin of error at about 15-25% either way. That means instead of our country losing approximately $10 billion dollars, we could generate $5 billion.

Besides all that, mandatory minimum sentences do nothing other than over crowd already crowded prisons. All it achieves is taking a non violent and often otherwise law abiding citizens and turn them into criminals. Instead of dealing with the problem (drug addiction) you let them rot in jail for a while and give them a criminal record making them practically unemployable to anyone. So what do they do, take a job at McDonalds for the rest of their life and live in poverty? No they do the only option left on the table… illegal crime.

One might even go as far as to say the war on drugs “Is about as effective as solving an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum” (song reference… see even my rants contain musical connotations).

EDIT - I forgot to mention, the United States has higher drug use rates than the Netherlands where many drugs are legal (ie marijuana) Drug Use by Country - Featured Image on BuzzFeed

Last edited by joyboyo53; 08-27-2008 at 02:17 PM.
joyboyo53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 03:46 PM   #33 (permalink)
down the rabbit hole
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: the mountain called monkey
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
I'm not sure what you mean though, as far as the drug thing goes. You say you think they should remain illegal, but all you've given is reasons as to why they clearly should be legalized?
I explained that I think MANY drugs should remain illegal. Most of my arguments were referring to why they should be viewed differently. I do think that marijuana should be made legal, and I think that LSD-25, MDMA (ecstasy), and Psilocybin mushrooms should be allowed to be used in clinical situations and as medicine (decriminalize them not make them legal). These drugs need more research before we go off and make them over the counter however. Unfortunately the big bad DEA which has **** for brains declares them of no medical value... even though they clearly have shown benefits. MDMA is a powerful drug that has shown positive feedback on testing for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Anxiety among other things. Psilocybin mushrooms have been incredibly valuable in treating people with cluster headaches, something that some women have described as more painful than childbirth. LSD-25 has shown properties that help treat addiction to alcohol and tobacco among a whole array of unknowns. Personally it changed my life and who I am today. It made me a happier and more positive person. I can honestly say I am a better person for having experienced it. However, if not taken properly it can be dangerous. This is why I think these should be decriminalized, not made legal. Marijuana though? Give me a ****ing break.
joyboyo53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 04:59 PM   #34 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgd85 View Post
Okay let me explain this very simply put. You cannot compare peanuts to pit bulls. I know what you’re doing and it’s very clever, it’s called shock value. You want to take something very benign and silly and say "well we might as well just ban [insert absurd object here] if we are going to ban pit bulls because they harm people too". If it was only the owner of the pit bull that was getting attacked/killed and taking the risk, it would be comparable. Unfortunately for your arguments sake eating a peanut isn’t going to make some innocent child across the street choke. Once again you’re comparing apples to oranges.
How? He's comparing object with Property A to another object with Property A. Peanuts, if misused, can be deadly. Pit bulls, if misused are harmful. A misuse of a peanut would be to put it a food and serve it to someone with allergies. A misuse of a pit bull would be to train it to bite non-intrusive people. In both case when a certain circumstance is met it becomes deadly. However, if you insist that this isn't applicable because a pit bull is capable of thought and is a living thing (we'll call these B and C) and peanuts are not than we should also look at something with both properties B and C. I'll bring forth to you humans, again. Human beings when misused have properties A, and inherently have properties B and C. If these 3 things in conjunction with each other are what makes something worthy of banning than humans meet all criteria requisite to be banned. If we assume humans are exempt than how about pet snakes? Snakes have properties A, B, and C. Should we ban pet snakes? How about dogs in general? All dogs are capable of A under the right (er... wrong?) circumstances, and also have properties B and C inherently. Again, if A, B, and C in conjunction with each other is what meets criteria for ban than by your logic all dogs should be banned.

If this is not the case than why are they being banned?
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 02:47 PM   #35 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
joderu95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 93
Default

Wtf?
__________________
Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? ~Pink Floyd
joderu95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2008, 02:09 AM   #36 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 368
Default

there's way too many arguments about why the pitbulls shouldn't be ended. but none of them are being listened to, because the people who want to end the pitbulls really don't give a rat's ass. they just want to kill some dogs, what can we do about it? the obvious solution is for everyone in the world to grab a machine gun and shoot everything. because seriously why not? what could possibly be more fun than everyone getting a machine gun and shooting everything? PINBALL?!?!?! **** you, start shooting.
SlayeReyalS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.