Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:50:34 AM
713408 Posts in 53060 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 162
Author Topic: You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  (Read 624753 times)
Skull
Guest
« Reply #195 on: July 30, 2010, 02:41:13 PM »

That's like saying some poor schmoe who shoplifted a dozen eggs to feed his family should get the same punishment as a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars. I can't say I agree with that one.

The point of punishment is to detour people away from doing crime at the first place, otherwise there is no point for the law. Why should I buy a dozen of eggs if I know the police will not do anything? My motive (stealing the eggs to feed my family) shouldnt justify my actions. The fact is I'm stealing the eggs.

Is it fair from me to serve the same punishment as a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars... No, but I dont think its fair for a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars serves the same punishment as murder or rape.

Life isnt fair... Lindsay Lohan is getting a scratch compaired to any poor schmoe that has actually did the samething.


Quote
Flick James

Whatever happened to simple accountability?

That got thrown out of the window because too many selfish people use their unlawful actions as an excuse so they don’t feel guilty for doing something bad and instead play the victim so they can get pity... Like smoking a joint... “Yes its illegal but it’s just a minor possession… why should I spend the same about of time in jail like the drug dealer?” [Typical argument]

The harsh reality is… buying the drugs from the drug dealer is making the demand for the supply.

Then comes the typical argument ~ legalize the drugs then the dealers will not have a supply.

First problem… which drugs, at what point and how can you say no to the others? How can you actually draw the line after pot or crack?

Second problem is acceptance of chaos… telling people that “such and such” is now legal because its too hard to stop people from doing such activities will incite others into pushing the envelope. If 1 person steals a dozen of eggs is that ok? What if 20 people are stealing a dozen of eggs?

Think I’m wrong? What is the most common argument for legalizing pot? Prohibition... And what ended Prohibition?

Jim H has I made my point?



Logged
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #196 on: July 30, 2010, 03:12:31 PM »

That's like saying some poor schmoe who shoplifted a dozen eggs to feed his family should get the same punishment as a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars. I can't say I agree with that one.

The point of punishment is to detour people away from doing crime at the first place, otherwise there is no point for the law. Why should I buy a dozen of eggs if I know the police will not do anything? My motive (stealing the eggs to feed my family) shouldn't justify my actions. The fact is I'm stealing the eggs.

Is it fair from me to serve the same punishment as a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars... No, but I don't think its fair for a guy who embezzled 2 million dollars serves the same punishment as murder or rape.

Life isn't fair... Lindsay Logan is getting a scratch compaired to any poor schmoe that has actually did the samething.


Quote
Flick James

Whatever happened to simple accountability?

That got thrown out of the window because too many selfish people use their unlawful actions as an excuse so they don't feel guilty for doing something bad and instead play the victim so they can get pity... Like smoking a joint... “Yes its illegal but it’s just a mpossessionsion… why should I spend the same about of time in jail like the drug dealer?” [Typical argument]

The harsh reality is… buying the drugs from the drug dealer is making the demand for the supply.

Then comes the typical argument ~ legalize the drugs then the dealers will not have a supply.

First problem… which drugs, at what point and how can you say no to the others? How can you actually draw the line after pot or crack?

Second problem is acceptance of chaos… telling people that “such and such” is now legal because its too hard to stop people from doing such activities will incite others into pushing the envelope. If 1 person steals a dozen of eggs is that ok? What if 20 people are stealing a dozen of eggs?

Think I’m wrong? What is the most common argument for legalizing pot? Prohibition... And what ended Prohibition?

Jim H has I made my point?




Skull I know I'm not the guy your trying to bring the point too but I don't get your point. what are you trying to hint that ended prohibition?
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #197 on: July 30, 2010, 03:48:08 PM »

Um, if a person gets caught shoplifting, they do get punished. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's a simple matter of the level to which one has violated or cause harm. The person who stole eggs from the grocery store has victimized the business's right and goal to turn a profit, but how much did he actually hurt that aim? Very little. The person who embezzled 2 million dollars not only significantly hurt that company, but also affected that company's ability to pay salaries to it's employees, provide medical insurance, etc. so that crime has affected many people in a significant way. So, again, is this really a simple question of you either stole or you didn't? And what does Lindsay Lohan have to do with anything? I certainly agree that this is an insult to justice. What does that have to do with the argument?

I'm not sure what you're asking about prohibition. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s is a valid argument about what creates criminality. Profit. When did organized crime rise to great power? During Prohibition. Why? Because there was a demand for substances that were illegal that criminals could provide instead of earning a living in a legal manner. Criminals are criminals. Giving them more ways to break the law increases their opportunities for illegal profit. Let's look at the border for example. There are drug cartels wreaking havoc on the poor Americans who have farms and/or property in the area. These poor people are paying the price for prohibition. Remove prohibition, and those people's lives improve. But this is not going to happen because the politicians profit too much from drug prohibition. They get votes by condemning it, and they profit monetarily from it. Is it just a coincidence that the production of opium in Afghanistan has increased exponentially since 2003? If so, that's got to be one of the strangest coincidences I've ever seen.

Does decriminalizing drugs not create other problems? Yes, it most likely does. It would be naive to say that the influence of drugs does not increase the liklihood of someone commiting a real crime. Granted. The same can be said of guns. I'm in favor of the right to bear arms as well. One of the arguments for gun control is that those that keep and bear arms are more likely to be involved in gun violence. Well, no s**t, Sherlock. But the overall benefits of allowing citizens to keep and bear arms over the obvious risks is what the real issue is. The same is true of drug prohibition. I'm sure there are other potential negative about removing prohibition that I'm missing, but to my estimation most of them are about what "could" happen. What kind of world do we live in if we are going to punish people for what they "might" do?

The goverment goes to great lengths to condemn drugs and keep the fight over drugs alive and well. They do this because it benefits them. It creates a much bigger and powerful more intrusive government, and isn't that what absolute power does? I also personally believe that the U.S. government is profitting from the increase in opium production in Afghanistan, and there has been evidence of that. If you remove the prohibition, you essentially weaken the government and make it smaller, and this is something they will not allow, so I have no illusions that that will actually happen, I simply believe it is the right thing to do. However, I'm always in favor of smaller and less intrusive government.

I'm not sure I understand your chaos argument. Are you saying that legalizing drugs would lead to chaos? Have you ever been to Holland or British Columbia? I have. Neither of these places are known for chaos.

My arguments have nothing to do with my own lifestyle. The only substance I partake in is moderate alcohol consumption. I haven't smoked tobacco in nearly four years, and I haven't touched marijuana in twice as many. I choose this because I am a mature adult who recognizes that these things are harmful to me in a way that I don't want. That's my choice. I also don't begrudge anyone who can responsibly consume the substance of their choice as long as it does not affect me or my family. How is this chaos? The more you tell people they can't do something the more they are going to want it, and the more criminals you create who are going to profit off of supplying it. This is human nature. Can you imagine what would happen in this country if they suddenly prohibited alcohol? You think the drug cartels along the border are bad now.

Look, Skull, we clearly are at odds here. I understand that there are risks involved in removing drug prohibition. The people who like to paint an idyllic picture how much better off we'll be if we legalize are a bit naive. I'm not concerned with that. My reasons for being in favor of it are a simple matter of believing that we are better off with drugs legal than with them prohibited. You believe that legalizing drugs will lead to chaos, while I believe that while you may have some initial problems, society would settle down after a little while once the thrill of being able to legally consume drugs wears off. I imagine it would probably be similar to when the Falstead Act was repealed and everyone got stinking drunk for a while then life got back to normal. Neither one of us knows for sure what would happen, we're simply conjecturing over what we suppose would happen, and we both claim to be using logic to do so. In fact, both of us ARE using logic, we just have different filters for our logic.

Wow, I just realized how much I just wrote. Goodness.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #198 on: July 30, 2010, 03:49:33 PM »


Skull I know I'm not the guy your trying to bring the point too but I don't get your point. what are you trying to hint that ended prohibition?

After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol, so the government ended Prohibition.

The typical argument for legalization drugs is ~ See government cannot control Alchol so it became legal so why not pot (or any other drug) since government seems to be failing at this too.

Therefore... based upon that logic... somebody will use that as an excuess for another criminal activity. (like illegal immigration... for example)






*Was Prohibition right at the first place... well from what I understand half the country was addicted to drugs in the late 1800's and it was an attempt to clean the country. I'm not saying the law was wrong or right, all I'm saying is people are using this example to legalize drugs, and I'm pointing out the chain... after legalize drugs something else will follow, and then we are back on the same old arguement... it always does.
Logged
Raffine
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 812
Posts: 4466



« Reply #199 on: July 30, 2010, 03:50:27 PM »

You know what grinds my gears?

When I forget to push the clutch all the way in, that's what.
Logged

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #200 on: July 30, 2010, 04:00:10 PM »


Skull I know I'm not the guy your trying to bring the point too but I don't get your point. what are you trying to hint that ended prohibition?

After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol, so the government ended Prohibition.

The typical argument for legalization drugs is ~ See government cannot control Alchol so it became legal so why not pot (or any other drug) since government seems to be failing at this too.

Therefore... based upon that logic... somebody will use that as an excuess for another criminal activity. (like illegal immigration... for example)

Okay, so, if you decriminalize drugs, you can channel all the law enforcement that's been aimed at that and shift it toward illegal immigration. That would be awesome.

You see, Skull? Through our disagreement and open discussion, we came up with a solution to another problem that neither of us intended.  Cheers
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 04:03:14 PM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #201 on: July 30, 2010, 04:14:34 PM »

Lindsay Lohan is proof that there is no such thing as fairness for the punishment.

Flick James ~ my original argument is based upon the idea that Government cannot afford the prisoners and are changing the crime laws so they could get out of prison… although its based upon the idea that they are paying $50,000 per prisoner each year and I don’t see 50,000 or even 20,000 actually… I’ve concluded 16,000 and the prisoners are eating at McDonalds 3 times a day and living comfortable in a 10x10 cell with 300 dollars worth of utilities (actually its 600 dollars since there is 2 prisoners in a cell) and there is one guard for every 5 prisoners. And they have at least 1,000 for healthcare per year.

Yet, we all know that isnt true because I know the prisoners are not eating McDonalds quility food, they have a lightbulb and a toilt in the cell and are required to turn the lights off at such and such time, they have no personal TV or internet and there isnt 1 guard per 5 prisoners... it's like 1 guard per 20 to 30 prisoners. And they are seldomly are treated for heathcare... Yet the government says it cost 50,000 to 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner in jail.

Really???
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #202 on: July 30, 2010, 04:23:15 PM »

Lindsay Lohan is proof that there is no such thing as fairness for the punishment.

Flick James ~ my original argument is based upon the idea that Government cannot afford the prisoners and are changing the crime laws so they could get out of prison… although its based upon the idea that they are paying $50,000 per prisoner each year and I don’t see 50,000 or even 20,000 actually… I’ve concluded 16,000 and the prisoners are eating at McDonalds 3 times a day and living comfortable in a 10x10 cell with 300 dollars worth of utilities (actually its 600 dollars since there is 2 prisoners in a cell) and there is one guard for every 5 prisoners. And they have at least 1,000 for healthcare per year.

Yet, we all know that isnt true because I know the prisoners are not eating McDonalds quility food, they have a lightbulb and a toilt in the cell and are required to turn the lights off at such and such time, they have no personal TV or internet and there isnt 1 guard per 5 prisoners... it's like 1 guard per 20 to 30 prisoners. And they are seldomly are treated for heathcare... Yet the government says it cost 50,000 to 20,000 a year to keep a prisoner in jail.

Really???

I never questioned you about numbers, did I? I never based any of my arguments on money spent on prisoners. That was Jim H. Once you start getting into statistics and manipulated numbers I lose interest.

Besides, I'm much more interested in this new justification you gave me about law enforcement. If you limit what is illegal, law enforcement can be less spread out and ineffective and concentrate on more important things. You see? Decriminalizing drugs makes cops more effective. Now let's get on to decriminalizing prostitution and even more cops can get freed up to work on more important things.  Thumbup Thumbup Thumbup

p.s. Besides not doing drugs, I also don't do prostitutes.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #203 on: July 30, 2010, 04:36:43 PM »

lol... I've know and it wasnt intended towards your but the whole "Government cannot afford such and such and needs to cut something stupid" does grind my gears...  Cheers
Logged
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #204 on: July 30, 2010, 04:48:07 PM »

To Skull thank you for clarifying your point, I had just woken up and wasn't putting two and two together (I'm working third shift this week). I can't say I agree with you but I do get your point none the less.

Anyways to change gears.... now what really grinds my gears are people who deny certain things in history happened. For example Holocaust deniers. Theres plenty of evidence that it happened from Jewish survivors, allied soldiers and lets not forget the Nazis themselves. They thought they were going to win the war so they filmed and documented a lot of it.
Logged
Skull
Guest
« Reply #205 on: July 30, 2010, 04:59:40 PM »

To Skull thank you for clarifying your point, I had just woken up and wasn't putting two and two together (I'm working third shift this week). I can't say I agree with you but I do get your point none the less.

Thanks...  Cheers

Quote
Anyways to change gears.... now what really grinds my gears are people who deny certain things in history happened. For example Holocaust deniers. Theres plenty of evidence that it happened from Jewish survivors, allied soldiers and lets not forget the Nazis themselves. They thought they were going to win the war so they filmed and documented a lot of it.

 Thumbup Thumbup Thumbup Cool, then you know why I hate the digital remastered Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1997)... it is an attempt to change history.
Logged
flackbait
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 1025


The fate of the last door to door salesmen


« Reply #206 on: July 30, 2010, 05:57:35 PM »

To Skull thank you for clarifying your point, I had just woken up and wasn't putting two and two together (I'm working third shift this week). I can't say I agree with you but I do get your point none the less.

Thanks...  Cheers

Quote
Anyways to change gears.... now what really grinds my gears are people who deny certain things in history happened. For example Holocaust deniers. Theres plenty of evidence that it happened from Jewish survivors, allied soldiers and lets not forget the Nazis themselves. They thought they were going to win the war so they filmed and documented a lot of it.

 Thumbup Thumbup Thumbup Cool, then you know why I hate the digital remastered Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1997)... it is an attempt to change history.
Actually bud I didn't know you thought that, but you are very correct it is tampering with history. Although I don't think I'd put George Lucas in the same group as Holocuast deniers though. Very different subject matter. And besides Lucas's recent attempts just make me sigh with disapointment, while Holocuast deniers "arguements" make my fists clench.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 06:01:21 PM by flackbait » Logged
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 314
Posts: 3669



« Reply #207 on: July 30, 2010, 08:45:23 PM »

Quote
Think I’m wrong? What is the most common argument for legalizing pot? Prohibition... And what ended Prohibition?

Jim H has I made my point?

You're now making a slippery slope argument, more or less.  I'm not convinced such a slope exists.

The countries that have decriminalized personal drug use have not seen this slide, so I see no reason to believe it'd happen here.  Look at Spain, Italy, and Portugal.  They have not had any measurable negative consequences to their decriminalization whatsoever.  As to how to define a "personal" amount, Portugal considers it roughly 10 days worth of daily doses.  There is no exact line here, one just has to be made up.  And frankly, if that allows extremely small time dealers to get away with it, I couldn't care less.

Oh, and I primarily agree with Flick James on this.  The money is secondary.
Logged
JaseSF
Super Space Age Freaky Geek
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 719
Posts: 13871


Soon, your brain will turn to jelly.


« Reply #208 on: July 30, 2010, 09:01:36 PM »

I personally would be very much against decriminalizing drugs if it means people under the influence are going to be out there in society expected to work and/or operate vehicles. They would be a danger to others. They would be useless as workers. I'm personally embarrassed to even be around a drunken and/or otherwise intoxicated person. I've seen families torn apart due to alcohol abuse. I knew a mother who lost two sons, one to alcohol poisoning and another to liver failure. I've seen a daughter humiliated by her drunken stumbling father acting like a fool at family get to-gethers. I've seen personal family warfare even during what's supposed to be happy times such as Christmas because one person decided to party too much and took all their pent up hostility out upon their families once their inhibitions were loosened. I know another family where it descended into violence of an husband towards a wife and her friends. I'm not saying it's the drugs themselves per se that is the problem, although their availability does seem to have grown and become much more common meaning there's even hard drugs nowadays in the smaller more rural parts of the world such as where I live, but it is the abuse of them and abuse has become much too common. It's also become way, way too easy for people to abuse prescription and over the counter drugs these days as well. A strong person needs no pick me up, no bottled courage. It's obvious drugs, not to say in the case of medication they can't be used in many positive ways, or at least their abuse is for the weak.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 09:36:27 PM by xJaseSFx » Logged

"This above all: To thine own self be true!"
Skull
Guest
« Reply #209 on: July 31, 2010, 07:55:49 AM »

Quote
Think I’m wrong? What is the most common argument for legalizing pot? Prohibition... And what ended Prohibition?

Jim H has I made my point?


You're now making a slippery slope argument, more or less.  I'm not convinced such a slope exists.

The countries that have decriminalized personal drug use have not seen this slide, so I see no reason to believe it'd happen here.  Look at Spain, Italy, and Portugal.  They have not had any measurable negative consequences to their decriminalization whatsoever.  As to how to define a "personal" amount, Portugal considers it roughly 10 days worth of daily doses.  There is no exact line here, one just has to be made up.  And frankly, if that allows extremely small time dealers to get away with it, I couldn't care less.

Oh, and I primarily agree with Flick James on this.  The money is secondary.


First what's good in another country doesnt mean its good for USA. Equally is true for every country.

Second most of those countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGS_(economics)) are bankrupt (based upon their own design) and since the USA is heading towards Europe (thanks to our new president) those countries are going deeper into the hole. Also they dont have the responsablity for being a world power and they dont have the responsability to keep the world together... The USA does. Saddly our responsabilty for being a world power does place us at at a higher standard.

Third... The Prohibition argument does exist because everybody that is pro-pot keeps bring it up. Like I said I'm pointing out the chain. Ones pot becomes legal somebody will be pushing something else and use legalize pot for the excuess.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 162
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.