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, 03:55:26 AM
713389 Posts in 53058 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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 162
Author Topic: You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  (Read 624649 times)
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #255 on: August 06, 2010, 10:07:19 AM »


Teen Alcoholism doesn't prove anything.

 Drink

Quote
All it proves is that, regardless of restriction or regulation, people are going to break the law.


VERY TRUE!!!! And I win!!! Have a nice day.  Cheers

Sorry no need for me talk about this issue any more!

Skull. I am extremely disappointed. I have had a good deal of respect for you up to this point. I win? Have a nice day? Skull, I know you are more mature than that.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #256 on: August 06, 2010, 10:34:57 AM »


Teen Alcoholism doesn't prove anything.

 Drink

Quote
All it proves is that, regardless of restriction or regulation, people are going to break the law.


VERY TRUE!!!! And I win!!! Have a nice day.  Cheers

Sorry no need for me talk about this issue any more!

Skull. I am extremely disappointed. I have had a good deal of respect for you up to this point. I win? Have a nice day? Skull, I know you are more mature than that.

I agree it sounds immature but so does this whole agrument of legalizing drugs is Immature  therefore so I can prove a point I'll have to playball at the same level.


First... the drug users are equally responsable for their own actions.

Your argument is... Oh those poor drug users dont deserve jail.

I think they should becuase they are making the demand for the supply. They need accountablity for their actions.

Second... Legalizing drugs will remove the drug dealers.

Really?

Oh I can see legalize crack and legalize date-rape drugs. [Such a great Campaign Slogan too - vote for me I legalized crack and date-rape drugs] The point is there is noway anybody in the right mind can justify legalizing such drugs therefore drug dealers will be in operation. So saying that the drug dealers will lose by legalizing drugs is a false statement.
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #257 on: August 06, 2010, 11:11:40 AM »

Thank you for playing ball. I'm not sure how I have been immature. I am debating and justifying my position. In fact, I have acknowledged your points far more than you have acknowledge mine. You have been routinely cherry-picking which of my premises you will address and ignoring the rest. However, I am glad you have decided to rejoin the debate. I am not in this to win, Skull, I am in this so that people will understand the issues better. Simply saying "drugs are bad" and "teen alcoholism is bad" is not going to help anyone. Why do you continue to ignore my premise that drug abuse continues to flourish in an prohibitive environment? Did you look at the LEAP website I posted in the other thread? Are you ignoring that too? These are people in law enforcement, cops, DEA agents, judges, prosecutors, who have had real, visceral experience fighting the war on drugs and they are coming to their senses and advocating that the drug problem can be more effectively fought by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal issue. You are also ignoring my premise that police and political corruption flourish in prohibition. I know you hate when people bring up the Falstead Act in this debate, but they do so because it is relevant. During alcohol prohibition, not only was alcohol consumption prevelant, but people were drinking very dangerous "bathtub gin" concoctions. You can control the safety of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not. You can also educate on the dangers of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not. Again, you have ignored my premise that the average American knows far more about what alcohol and tobacco do to your body and brain than they do about what illegal substances do. The positives of decriminalizing drugs and treating them as a public health issue are stacking up and you keep saying "teen alcoholism."

Now, on to your points.

"First... the drug users are equally responsable for their own actions." Good, so we agree there. Why should they be responsible for using a substance if they have not done anything other than use a substance? Until they have committed a real crime that affects someone else, they have done nothing but make a personal choice that affects nobody but themselves. If they have a problem with addiction, and they want help, help should be provided by the Department of Health. Incarceration won't help them or society. Are you really in favor of throwing some college kid who has a joint into prison? Do you know what happens when you do that? They actually become hardened criminals and get exposed to far worse drugs in prison.

"Your argument is... Oh those poor drug users dont deserve jail." You're right. That is my argument. That continues to be my argument. As long as they don't affect the rights or safety of another, they have done no wrong. Newt brought up the issue of addicted pregnant women causing their babies to be born with an addiction. That is a horrible problem. However, this problem is happening, and it's happening now, during prohibition. Newt's assumption is that by legalizing drugs you increase that problem. By unfettered legalization with no regulation, yes, you do. However, by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal one, it is debatable whether or not such a problem would increase. In my opinion it would decrease. But, you see, that is an assumption that is no more valid than the assumption that it would increase.

"I think they should becuase they are making the demand for the supply. They need accountablity for their actions." No the don't. They need that accountability removed, and they need to be held accountable for when they endanger others. The demand is there and it's illegal. You're arguing that by enforcing the laws more and cracking down more you're going to remove or decrease demand, yet there is absolutely no way for you to prove that. I'll bring up Afghanistan again. That is a Muslim country that enforces law through extreme prejudice and, for the Muslims, drug use is far less acceptable than it is in our society. Yet, the opium industry is out of control. And who are they supplying? Mainly the U.S. Prohibition does not reduce demand. It can even be argued that prohibition increases demand, but, like I said before, I will already accept your disagreement with that statement, because I accept that it is highly debatable.

"Second... Legalizing drugs will remove the drug dealers.

Really?"  Yes, really. Those law enforcers from LEAP even agree to that. They cannot get rid of the drug lords. No matter how hard they fight and how many drug lords they take down, more spring up in their place. They can't win. The only way to be even remotely affective with prohibition is to enforce it within a totalitarian regime, and even then, it could not be removed. It would be affectively reduced, but then we would be living in a totalitarian regime.

"Oh I can see legalize crack and legalize date-rape drugs. [Such a great Campaign Slogan too - vote for me I legalized crack and date-rape drugs] The point is there is noway anybody in the right mind can justify legalizing such drugs therefore drug dealers will be in operation. So saying that the drug dealers will lose by legalizing drugs is a false statement."  How do you know it's a false statement? What makes you think that drug dealers wouldn't be negatively impacted? Again, basic supply and demand laws. When you make something easier to obtain, such as by removing a legal ban, you reduce the value of that item. Therefore, drug dealers are negatively impacted because they can no longer charge for a drug 50 times what the drug is worth. How does that NOT curb drug dealers?

Anyway, I am happy to see you have rejoined, Skull. I wish it could be moved to the other thread, but I don't think that's going to happen. Oh well, we're still having our gears ground, so what the hell?
 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 11:16:00 AM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #258 on: August 06, 2010, 02:09:31 PM »

Quote
Anyway, I am happy to see you have rejoined, Skull. I wish it could be moved to the other thread, but I don't think that's going to happen.


This topic still grinds my gears... :)

And lets not forget why I'm posting at the first place... Prisoners cost the government 50,000 to 20,000... And I factor these prisoners are getting McDonalds 3 times a day, wasting 3 hundred dollars worth of utilities (600 dollars per cell since there is 2 prisoner per cell) and there is 1 guard per 5 prisoners... And I'm giving them 1,000 for healthcare... I've came up with 16,000 and that's number is a joke.

Also I dont see a point in making a drug topic unless you are looking for support.

Quote
Thank you for playing ball. I'm not sure how I have been immature. I am debating and justifying my position.


The justification doesn’t make any sense and I cannot believe any mature person can agree to it. I feel that I’m banging my head against the brick wall.

Really. How can anybody logically justify an activity that destroys the mind, the body and people (whom are not users)?

Quote
In fact, I have acknowledged your points far more than you have acknowledge mine. You have been routinely cherry-picking which of my premises you will address and ignoring the rest.


I think I’ve over expressed your points. Just because I don’t agree with you isn’t cherry-picking.

Quote
However, I am glad you have decided to rejoin the debate. I am not in this to win, Skull, I am in this so that people will understand the issues better.


Me too… although you have pointed out my very argument correctly, therefore I have gotten my message thru.

Quote
Simply saying "drugs are bad" and "teen alcoholism is bad" is not going to help anyone.


True. But saying the users are not responsible for there own actions are just as well saying “oh, drug/alcohol is bad because they are the victim.” Accountability, please.

Quote
Why do you continue to ignore my premise that drug abuse continues to flourish in an prohibitive environment?


Because you ignore part of the problem… the users.

Quote
Did you look at the LEAP website I posted in the other thread? Are you ignoring that too? These are people in law enforcement, cops, DEA agents, judges, prosecutors, who have had real, visceral experience fighting the war on drugs and they are coming to their senses and advocating that the drug problem can be more effectively fought by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal issue.


Oh, I guess it’s a public health issue…

Seriously, if it’s a public health issue then why let the general public gain access.

Quote
You are also ignoring my premise that police and political corruption flourish in prohibition.


Nope… I don’t trust government and I’d prove it… by pointing out the cost of prisoners.

Quote
I know you hate when people bring up the Falstead Act in this debate, but they do so because it is relevant.


It only angers me when they don’t include the HISTORY as why they decided to Ban Alcohol at the first place… I mean its not like one day Government woke up and said “Today we are going to ban alcohol”

Quote
During alcohol prohibition, not only was alcohol consumption prevelant, but people were drinking very dangerous "bathtub gin" concoctions. You can control the safety of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not.


Good try, but you failed.



The reason why Prohibition was started because over half of the American citizens were addictive to some sort of drugs in the turn of the century, people were at the point of putting cocaine in cough medicine and it was part of Coca Cola’s secret recipe. Because alcohol also has addictive properties there was a movement to ban it.

“Bathtub Gin” lol… Al Capone was getting his stuff from Canada.

Quote
You can also educate on the dangers of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not.


How? Government says “Drugs is Good” (because its legal) so how can you educate on the dangers? The government has been telling people they are going to get cancer from cigarettes since 1970 and still people don’t get it, they are smoking getting cancer and suing big tobacco based upon “not knowing the dangers.” 

Quote
Again, you have ignored my premise that the average American knows far more about what alcohol and tobacco do to your body and brain than they do about what illegal substances do.


All I know is people in general has good intentions and most isn’t dumb. Many assume there are levels of drugs (soft drugs and hard drugs) and many also assume they have control over their addiction. Gee, I remember talking to my cousin about this some 15 years ago and the told me he has control of his addiction, which he didn’t and he switched to cheaper and harder drugs.

Quote
The positives of decriminalizing drugs and treating them as a public health issue are stacking up and you keep saying "teen alcoholism."


Oh you are so funny. There is no positive to an addiction and there is no positive that taxpayers are forced to play for an addiction.  Actually, Healthcare is now the law of the land, do you think we can afford treating drug addictions.

“Teen Alcoholism” is the case and point of government legalizing a substance and making regulations that don’t work.

Quote
"First... the drug users are equally responsible for their own actions."

Good, so we agree there. Why should they be responsible for using a substance if they have not done anything other than use a substance? Until they have committed a real crime that affects someone else, they have done nothing but make a personal choice that affects nobody but themselves. If they have a problem with addiction, and they want help, help should be provided by the Department of Health. Incarceration won't help them or society. Are you really in favor of throwing some college kid who has a joint into prison? Do you know what happens when you do that? They actually become hardened criminals and get exposed to far worse drugs in prison.


Part of the problem here is that you still think the drug users are the victims.

Quote
"Your argument is... Oh those poor drug users don’t deserve jail."

You're right. That is my argument. That continues to be my argument. As long as they don't affect the rights or safety of another, they have done no wrong. Newt brought up the issue of addicted pregnant women causing their babies to be born with an addiction. That is a horrible problem. However, this problem is happening, and it's happening now, during prohibition. Newt's assumption is that by legalizing drugs you increase that problem. By unfettered legalization with no regulation, yes, you do. However, by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal one, it is debatable whether or not such a problem would increase. In my opinion it would decrease. But, you see, that is an assumption that is no more valid than the assumption that it would increase.


Not a solution when you don’t consider that the drug users aren’t equally responsible for their own actions.

Quote
"I think they should becuase they are making the demand for the supply. They need accountablity for their actions."

No the don't. They need that accountability removed, and they need to be held accountable for when they endanger others. The demand is there and it's illegal. You're arguing that by enforcing the laws more and cracking down more you're going to remove or decrease demand, yet there is absolutely no way for you to prove that. I'll bring up Afghanistan again. That is a Muslim country that enforces law through extreme prejudice and, for the Muslims, drug use is far less acceptable than it is in our society. Yet, the opium industry is out of control. And who are they supplying? Mainly the U.S. Prohibition does not reduce demand. It can even be argued that prohibition increases demand, but, like I said before, I will already accept your disagreement with that statement, because I accept that it is highly debatable.


Lol… in the 1800’s people were sentenced to death for stealing a horse and currently many Muslims countries get their hands chopped off for stealing. Those are extreme. 

The point of the law is to deter crime. Not reward crime. It supposes to make people stop and think of their own actions, so I’m asking for accountability. If they go to jail for 10 years who’s fault is it, mine? Gee… This is why the argument is immature.

Quote
"Second... Legalizing drugs will remove the drug dealers.

Really?"  Yes, really. Those law enforcers from LEAP even agree to that. They cannot get rid of the drug lords. No matter how hard they fight and how many drug lords they take down, more spring up in their place. They can't win. The only way to be even remotely affective with prohibition is to enforce it within a totalitarian regime, and even then, it could not be removed. It would be affectively reduced, but then we would be living in a totalitarian regime.


Which is it… yes or no? You said yes but you also said “They cannot get rid of the drug lords.”

Reduce is not removal.

Legalizing Alcohol removed the bootleggers because all forms of alcohol becomes legal.

Quote
"Oh I can see legalize crack and legalize date-rape drugs. [Such a great Campaign Slogan too - vote for me I legalized crack and date-rape drugs] The point is there is noway anybody in the right mind can justify legalizing such drugs therefore drug dealers will be in operation. So saying that the drug dealers will lose by legalizing drugs is a false statement." 
How do you know it's a false statement? What makes you think that drug dealers wouldn't be negatively impacted? Again, basic supply and demand laws. When you make something easier to obtain, such as by removing a legal ban, you reduce the value of that item. Therefore, drug dealers are negatively impacted because they can no longer charge for a drug 50 times what the drug is worth. How does that NOT curb drug dealers?


First… I know people.

Second… I know such drugs like crack and date-rape are never going to be legal.

Third… Government controlled drugs are going to cost more, since there are taxes. It’ll be cheaper to get marijuana from a drug dealer.
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #259 on: August 06, 2010, 03:06:09 PM »

Quote
Anyway, I am happy to see you have rejoined, Skull. I wish it could be moved to the other thread, but I don't think that's going to happen.


This topic still grinds my gears... :)

And lets not forget why I'm posting at the first place... Prisoners cost the government 50,000 to 20,000... And I factor these prisoners are getting McDonalds 3 times a day, wasting 3 hundred dollars worth of utilities (600 dollars per cell since there is 2 prisoner per cell) and there is 1 guard per 5 prisoners... And I'm giving them 1,000 for healthcare... I've came up with 16,000 and that's number is a joke.

Also I dont see a point in making a drug topic unless you are looking for support.

Quote
Thank you for playing ball. I'm not sure how I have been immature. I am debating and justifying my position.


The justification doesn’t make any sense and I cannot believe any mature person can agree to it. I feel that I’m banging my head against the brick wall.

Really. How can anybody logically justify an activity that destroys the mind, the body and people (whom are not users)?

Quote
In fact, I have acknowledged your points far more than you have acknowledge mine. You have been routinely cherry-picking which of my premises you will address and ignoring the rest.


I think I’ve over expressed your points. Just because I don’t agree with you isn’t cherry-picking.

Quote
However, I am glad you have decided to rejoin the debate. I am not in this to win, Skull, I am in this so that people will understand the issues better.


Me too… although you have pointed out my very argument correctly, therefore I have gotten my message thru.

Quote
Simply saying "drugs are bad" and "teen alcoholism is bad" is not going to help anyone.


True. But saying the users are not responsible for there own actions are just as well saying “oh, drug/alcohol is bad because they are the victim.” Accountability, please.

Quote
Why do you continue to ignore my premise that drug abuse continues to flourish in an prohibitive environment?


Because you ignore part of the problem… the users.

Quote
Did you look at the LEAP website I posted in the other thread? Are you ignoring that too? These are people in law enforcement, cops, DEA agents, judges, prosecutors, who have had real, visceral experience fighting the war on drugs and they are coming to their senses and advocating that the drug problem can be more effectively fought by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal issue.


Oh, I guess it’s a public health issue…

Seriously, if it’s a public health issue then why let the general public gain access.

Quote
You are also ignoring my premise that police and political corruption flourish in prohibition.


Nope… I don’t trust government and I’d prove it… by pointing out the cost of prisoners.

Quote
I know you hate when people bring up the Falstead Act in this debate, but they do so because it is relevant.


It only angers me when they don’t include the HISTORY as why they decided to Ban Alcohol at the first place… I mean its not like one day Government woke up and said “Today we are going to ban alcohol”

Quote
During alcohol prohibition, not only was alcohol consumption prevelant, but people were drinking very dangerous "bathtub gin" concoctions. You can control the safety of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not.


Good try, but you failed.



The reason why Prohibition was started because over half of the American citizens were addictive to some sort of drugs in the turn of the century, people were at the point of putting cocaine in cough medicine and it was part of Coca Cola’s secret recipe. Because alcohol also has addictive properties there was a movement to ban it.

“Bathtub Gin” lol… Al Capone was getting his stuff from Canada.

Quote
You can also educate on the dangers of substances far better when they are legal than when they are not.


How? Government says “Drugs is Good” (because its legal) so how can you educate on the dangers? The government has been telling people they are going to get cancer from cigarettes since 1970 and still people don’t get it, they are smoking getting cancer and suing big tobacco based upon “not knowing the dangers.”  

Quote
Again, you have ignored my premise that the average American knows far more about what alcohol and tobacco do to your body and brain than they do about what illegal substances do.


All I know is people in general has good intentions and most isn’t dumb. Many assume there are levels of drugs (soft drugs and hard drugs) and many also assume they have control over their addiction. Gee, I remember talking to my cousin about this some 15 years ago and the told me he has control of his addiction, which he didn’t and he switched to cheaper and harder drugs.

Quote
The positives of decriminalizing drugs and treating them as a public health issue are stacking up and you keep saying "teen alcoholism."


Oh you are so funny. There is no positive to an addiction and there is no positive that taxpayers are forced to play for an addiction.  Actually, Healthcare is now the law of the land, do you think we can afford treating drug addictions.

“Teen Alcoholism” is the case and point of government legalizing a substance and making regulations that don’t work.

Quote
"First... the drug users are equally responsible for their own actions."

Good, so we agree there. Why should they be responsible for using a substance if they have not done anything other than use a substance? Until they have committed a real crime that affects someone else, they have done nothing but make a personal choice that affects nobody but themselves. If they have a problem with addiction, and they want help, help should be provided by the Department of Health. Incarceration won't help them or society. Are you really in favor of throwing some college kid who has a joint into prison? Do you know what happens when you do that? They actually become hardened criminals and get exposed to far worse drugs in prison.


Part of the problem here is that you still think the drug users are the victims.

Quote
"Your argument is... Oh those poor drug users don’t deserve jail."

You're right. That is my argument. That continues to be my argument. As long as they don't affect the rights or safety of another, they have done no wrong. Newt brought up the issue of addicted pregnant women causing their babies to be born with an addiction. That is a horrible problem. However, this problem is happening, and it's happening now, during prohibition. Newt's assumption is that by legalizing drugs you increase that problem. By unfettered legalization with no regulation, yes, you do. However, by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal one, it is debatable whether or not such a problem would increase. In my opinion it would decrease. But, you see, that is an assumption that is no more valid than the assumption that it would increase.


Not a solution when you don’t consider that the drug users aren’t equally responsible for their own actions.

Quote
"I think they should becuase they are making the demand for the supply. They need accountablity for their actions."

No the don't. They need that accountability removed, and they need to be held accountable for when they endanger others. The demand is there and it's illegal. You're arguing that by enforcing the laws more and cracking down more you're going to remove or decrease demand, yet there is absolutely no way for you to prove that. I'll bring up Afghanistan again. That is a Muslim country that enforces law through extreme prejudice and, for the Muslims, drug use is far less acceptable than it is in our society. Yet, the opium industry is out of control. And who are they supplying? Mainly the U.S. Prohibition does not reduce demand. It can even be argued that prohibition increases demand, but, like I said before, I will already accept your disagreement with that statement, because I accept that it is highly debatable.


Lol… in the 1800’s people were sentenced to death for stealing a horse and currently many Muslims countries get their hands chopped off for stealing. Those are extreme.  

The point of the law is to deter crime. Not reward crime. It supposes to make people stop and think of their own actions, so I’m asking for accountability. If they go to jail for 10 years who’s fault is it, mine? Gee… This is why the argument is immature.

Quote
"Second... Legalizing drugs will remove the drug dealers.

Really?"  Yes, really. Those law enforcers from LEAP even agree to that. They cannot get rid of the drug lords. No matter how hard they fight and how many drug lords they take down, more spring up in their place. They can't win. The only way to be even remotely affective with prohibition is to enforce it within a totalitarian regime, and even then, it could not be removed. It would be affectively reduced, but then we would be living in a totalitarian regime.


Which is it… yes or no? You said yes but you also said “They cannot get rid of the drug lords.”

Reduce is not removal.

Legalizing Alcohol removed the bootleggers because all forms of alcohol becomes legal.

Quote
"Oh I can see legalize crack and legalize date-rape drugs. [Such a great Campaign Slogan too - vote for me I legalized crack and date-rape drugs] The point is there is noway anybody in the right mind can justify legalizing such drugs therefore drug dealers will be in operation. So saying that the drug dealers will lose by legalizing drugs is a false statement."  
How do you know it's a false statement? What makes you think that drug dealers wouldn't be negatively impacted? Again, basic supply and demand laws. When you make something easier to obtain, such as by removing a legal ban, you reduce the value of that item. Therefore, drug dealers are negatively impacted because they can no longer charge for a drug 50 times what the drug is worth. How does that NOT curb drug dealers?


First… I know people.

Second… I know such drugs like crack and date-rape are never going to be legal.

Third… Government controlled drugs are going to cost more, since there are taxes. It’ll be cheaper to get marijuana from a drug dealer.



Okay, I'll go ahead and give up here, Skull. I called your single action of saying "I win. Have a nice day." as immature, and I also acknowledged that I was pretty sure you were more mature than that. Now I'm beginning to wonder. I never accused you of immaturity because of your arguments. I've even acknowledged that I know you are arguing out of a genuine concern for the public. So am I. If you can't at least acknowledge that then it is impossible to reason with you. You appear to think it is impossible to advocate a different solution than prohibition and be opposed to drug use at the same time. If you can't see that then, again, I can't reason with you.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 03:36:21 PM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #260 on: August 06, 2010, 04:31:55 PM »

Flick James ~ You do have good intentions but I'm being honest.

The problem with government legalizing drugs is basically they are telling the general public that "it's ok to get high" then all the education in the world about it's ill effects will not stop people from getting high. [I've think I said this a dozen of times. I really believe xJaseSFx statement is right!]

Quote
With regulations or not, legalizing drugs means easier access and more acceptability within society leading to more drug addicts and a less effective work force IMO. I personally think drug abuse, including prescription and legal drug abuse, should never be seen as acceptable within society or anywhere else. At least with many drugs being illegal it's shows that overall society frowns upon the action of taking and selling said drugs. ~ xJaseSFx

« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 04:34:08 PM by Skull » Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #261 on: August 06, 2010, 05:06:08 PM »

Flick James ~ You do have good intentions but I'm being honest.

The problem with government legalizing drugs is basically they are telling the general public that "it's ok to get high" then all the education in the world about it's ill effects will not stop people from getting high. [I've think I said this a dozen of times. I really believe xJaseSFx statement is right!]

Quote
With regulations or not, legalizing drugs means easier access and more acceptability within society leading to more drug addicts and a less effective work force IMO. I personally think drug abuse, including prescription and legal drug abuse, should never be seen as acceptable within society or anywhere else. At least with many drugs being illegal it's shows that overall society frowns upon the action of taking and selling said drugs. ~ xJaseSFx



I'm being honest as well. So which one is right? How am I being less honest by saying that I believe that the drug problem would be better without prohibition that with it? Did I ever say that lifting prohibition would rid us of the drug problem? I'm pretty sure I never said that. I said it would be a better alternative than prohibition, and I brought up legitimate premises. That's not to say that you did not bring up legitimate premises for your arguments, but debate is not about winning or losing, it's about gaining understanding. I want to gain your understand just as much as, I would assume, you want to gain mine. Or, perhaps you simply want to win the debate and don't care if you gain my understanding or not. I'm uncertain which is the case.

So, what has happened here is that we both feel know what is better, and we both feel we are beating our heads against a brick wall. So, I think it's safe to say we are at an impass. I'm honestly glad this debate has taken place, because I am even more rooted in my position than I ever was before. It has forced me to find justification for my views, and I have found it, and in a way I thank you, because I have grown from the experience. I will honestly say that I have a greater compassion for those that have suffered from drug addiction that I did before this debate began, and I am even more convinced that prohibition makes the drug problem worse, not better. Before, I didn't care whether or not those that had drug problems got help, now I do. Also, I found an organization of current and former law enforcement agents who agree with me. So, I have gained quite a bit from this experience.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #262 on: August 06, 2010, 05:18:59 PM »

You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  People who continue to go back and forth in an argument after it's become perfectly clear they can't find any common ground or convince the other party. 

Present company excepted. Wink 
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #263 on: August 06, 2010, 05:40:34 PM »

You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  People who continue to go back and forth in an argument after it's become perfectly clear they can't find any common ground or convince the other party. 

Present company excepted. Wink 

Shouldn't that be present company included? I know, I've had trouble stopping. But I was addicted to the debate. I think I should be sent to prison. I'll stop now.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #264 on: August 06, 2010, 05:45:43 PM »

Actually, must confess something terrible. I don't even care about his topic. I have no opnion on the matter. I was just using the thread to help get me to 1000 posts.  BounceGiggle
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
JaseSF
Super Space Age Freaky Geek
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 719
Posts: 13871


Soon, your brain will turn to jelly.


« Reply #265 on: August 06, 2010, 05:57:36 PM »

I'm moving my reaction to this to the Drug Prohibition thread as this thread is a good and interesting one in its own right and someone might well still want to contribute about something "grinding their gears" so to speak.
Logged

"This above all: To thine own self be true!"
Skull
Guest
« Reply #266 on: August 07, 2010, 06:33:51 AM »

You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  People who continue to go back and forth in an argument after it's become perfectly clear they can't find any common ground or convince the other party. 

Present company excepted. Wink 

Sorry, but when it comes to legalized drugs there is no winners. My argument isnt for Flick James its for the other that will look at this thread for the next 10 years and start to believe into the nonsense that legalized drugs is a good idea. I've seen this topic made a million of times in a million other forums and usually its just a debate and the idea only adds to the flames of Justifying an insanity to do drugs at the first place. People are that stupid. So I'll fight to win and I'll drag this issue into the ground.


Sorry, Flick James... but I cannot agree with your argument because its against everything I love and respect.
Logged
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 979
Posts: 8413


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #267 on: August 07, 2010, 07:37:15 AM »

I'm moving my reaction to this to the Drug Prohibition thread as this thread is a good and interesting one in its own right and someone might well still want to contribute about something "grinding their gears" so to speak.

No, no.
It's okay, you folks stay.

You're keeping this thread going, guys!  TeddyR
Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
Newt
Mostly Harmless. Mostly.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 856
Posts: 3715


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #268 on: August 07, 2010, 07:53:54 AM »

What really grinds my gears is when I catch major errors presented as 'fact': especially by 'authorities' and when a bit of thought (or basic research) would reveal the misconception.  Such as when on the TV show How It's Made they said horseshoe nails were made of lead.  Or when Mythbusters investigated gold fish having a "three second memory".   Lookingup

Horseshoe nails would not last a day made of soft lead!  They are steel.
The 'three second rule' has to do with animal training: it is the 'window of opportunity' (time interval) within which a response must occur in order for many animals to connect your response with what caused it.
Logged

"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
Skull
Guest
« Reply #269 on: August 07, 2010, 11:33:38 AM »

What really grinds my gears is when I catch major errors presented as 'fact': especially by 'authorities' and when a bit of thought (or basic research) would reveal the misconception.  Such as when on the TV show How It's Made they said horseshoe nails were made of lead.  Or when Mythbusters investigated gold fish having a "three second memory".   Lookingup

Horseshoe nails would not last a day made of soft lead!  They are steel.
The 'three second rule' has to do with animal training: it is the 'window of opportunity' (time interval) within which a response must occur in order for many animals to connect your response with what caused it.

Ooooo... such a good point!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 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.