Ron Paul, Hookers, and Heroin

Baloney. Not with these statements....


Using this logic, I presume Ron Paul would be in favor of gay marriage.



It was a response to that particular flatulence.

 

And I support your right to assume that, whether your assumption is correct or not.

 

Thank you. Is my assumption correct?

 

In post #24, I asked you four questions that you have, so far, refused to answer. It doesn't seem very fair to me that I should be expected to answer your questions while you're allowed to ignore mine. How about a little fairness?

You answer the questions I asked you in post #24 and I'll consider answering this one.

 

No. Schools and highways are legal. It is the status quo. Heroin use is illegal. You are talking about making heroin use legal; I'm saying it should remain illegal.

Shooting dogs? I suppose there are laws against it. Again, the question was: how could heroin use by neighbors affect your life? I contend that drug users are stupid people and stupid people that hallucinate tend to increase the likelihood of bad things happening. Ergo, the possibility of something bad happening to you increases with neighbors that are high all the time.

The possibility of something bad happening to you increases with neighbors that are high all the time. In this case your wasted neighbor might not think to call the police because he's, well, high.

This question makes no sense. You are the one advocating making heretofore illegal activities legal. So what benefits do you receive from having heroin addicted neighbors?

 

I will but I suspect you will go off on a tangent in responding to my response to post #24, but here goes..

 

...Like abortion.

Then there you go.

People who are high "all the time" tend not to live very long. And any dope fiend who comes onto my land with a gun is going to be one of them.

Actually, the question makes perfect sense: you claim that drugs should be illegal because a person on drugs will refuse to call the police if my home is robbed. And yet, in 1996, my home was robbed in plain sight of approximately thirty neighbors who, statistics show, were not on drugs. So the question is, if making drugs illegal will cause drug users (who would still be using the drugs) to call the police, then what do we make illegal to cause those who are not drug users to call the police?

And you're ignoring a very important point, which is that legalizing drugs will not cause people to use drugs. It will merely cease to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. The idea that legalizing drugs will cause everyone to become a crack smoking, heroin shooting, Keith Richards clone has been debunked over and over. People who don't take drugs don't abstain from drugs because they're illegal, but because it is in their best moral, professional, social, and practical interest not to do drugs.

Conversely, making drugs illegal obviously doesn't prevent drug users from using drugs.

Actually, it isn't a tangent. It's called having a conversation.

Now, fair being fair, the issue of gay marriage is a very complex one, one that I don't feel comfortable boiling down to a simplistic "yes" or "no" answer.

On the one hand, as a Christian, obviously, I have serious moral issues with the idea of redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex. On the other, I recognize that we do not live in a theocracy, nor do I want others to be bound by my moral beliefs.

Then there is the issue of who marriage belongs to. While a government redefinition of marriage would impinge on many aspects of the Church's teaching and belief on the ordinance of marriage, the question of who marriage belongs to is still in play. Although marriage has secular legal benefits, it is still a religious covenant and for Christians, we follow the Bible's teaching on marriage, not the government's.

If it's a matter of benefits, as gay marriage proponents claim, then, frankly, I really don't care whether it's legalized or not. I believe that the benefits argument is a red herring, as there are several other very simple ways that homosexuals can procure such benefits without being married.

If it's not benefits, but merely a way to force the rest of us to gradually accept homosexuality as a moral alternative by redefining marriage then, yes, I'm against it.

That's not as simple as the yes or no you were fishing for, but that is my answer and in the real world, answers are rarely so black and white as you would like for them to be.

 

So to what extent are we allowed to examine our neighbor's lives, and decide how many of their habits is dangerous to us ?

I'm kinda creeped out, here.

 

Yep, flying off on a tangent. Once again, the question was:

HOW DOES MY NEIGHBOR THE DRUG ADDICT, SHOOTING UP ON THE FRONT PORCH AFFECT MY LIFE?

Your answer (buried in there somewhere): He doesn't. Not at all. All the scenarios I mentioned would have happened anyway. Dogs get shot, houses get robbed, people do drugs. My point is that the likelihood of these sorts of things increase. Will you deny that collateral crimes occur around drug users?

BTW, I never said "legalizing drugs will cause everyone to become a crack smoking, heroin shooting, Keith Richards clone". Straw man.

And this is absurd:

BTW, I largely agree with your logic on gay marriage. I would not be opposed to legalizing civil unions between gay couples if they are truly denied the same legal rights as married people, but I wholeheartedly oppose the notion of calling it "marriage." Marriage is and has been defined for centuries by almost all societies (not just Christian) as between a man and a woman. But I suspect that gays want to have it called marriage so that they can force society to accept gay activity as moral.

 

Whatever extent that free people electing representatives to enact laws will allow.

For example, should people be allowed to text while driving?
How about carrying a loaded gun on an airplane?
Leaving a baby in a locked car while the parent goes elsewhere for hours?
Letting a 12 year old drive a motorcycle?
Pouring motor oil down the drain?
Having a porn store next to a school?
Disposing of the carcass of a cleaned deer in your back yard (unburied)?

 

Do you know what a tangent is?

If a crime is occurring, then address the crime, not a harmless behavior that someone does in the privacy of their own home.

Even if your argument that these things are the direct result of drug use were true, it still doesn't explain how they will increase in frequency when the number of drug users does not increase and does not account for the drug users who do not do these things.

BTW, I never said you did. Straw man.

Why is it absurd?

 

In the words of Merle Haggard, "...and I wonder just how long the rest of us will keep on being free".

No, as this presents a direct danger to the safety of others.

If the person has a CCP, what's the problem?

No, as this endangers the baby.

Yes.

Yes.

No, as this poses a danger to children.

Yes.

 

Yes.

If crime can be prevented, it should be prevented. You seem to be saying let's allow drug use and if there is any crime related to it, we'll deal with it when it happens.

We should not legalize behavior that is known to cause more crime or societal harm. For example, should it be legal for teenagers to consume alcohol? Studies have shown that alcohol consumption by teens leads to unwanted pregnancies (and auto accidents, fighting, poor school performance). So it is sensible to have laws prohibiting teen drinking.

Legalizing something almost always leads to an increase in its activity. We can argue about the level of increase but you can't seriously believe that there would be no change, or at least an experimental phase where people would try previously illegal things.

You have not shown that making something illegal will cause people to do anything. You are merely taking the opposite viewpoint and presenting a false choice.

 

That's the trouble with a representative democracy, people elect people that enact laws. If we don't like the laws we elect people that will overturn those laws.


(I appreciate your direct answers to the questions.)

 

Good. Then please start using the word correctly. To respond directly to something you've said and to offer my opinion on it is not a tangent, but is part of what we grown ups call having a conversation.

You don't prevent crime by making criminals out of people.

Yes, typically, we wait until a crime is committed to punish people.

Already addressed and refuted.

]quote]For example, should it be legal for teenagers to consume alcohol? Studies have shown that alcohol consumption by teens leads to unwanted pregnancies (and auto accidents, fighting, poor school performance). So it is sensible to have laws prohibiting teen drinking.[/quote]

I agree. It is commonly understood that children do not get to enjoy many of the benefits and freedoms of adulthood.

But if you're going to be consistent, then why aren't you making a similar argument for making it illegal for adults to consume alcohol? After all, studies have shown that alcohol consumption by adults can lead to serious health risks, violent behavior, auto accidents, countless lost productivity at work, neglect of family obligations, etc. And yet, you still think it's OK for alcohol to be legal for consumption.

Already refuted.

Yes, I deny that there would be a significant increase for the reasons already stated and, of that insignificant increase, you still have not demonstrated that they would commit crimes.

That's not what I asked you. The question was, why is it absurd?

Yeah, that's good thinking. Right up to the point that we elect people who do not want us to elect someone else.

 

For example, should people be allowed to text while driving?

I am shocked at how many people text and drive. I can't drive anywhere without seeing people doing this. Went to a youth baseball game last night, about 6 miles from my house and saw three drivers texting. Funny thing is, their cars were dented up. I always shake a shaming finger at them, or if the windows are open I will yell at them to stop texting.

This is my current hot button issue. I'd almost welcome some young twit to talk back to me when I admonish them to stop texting. I'd probably motion them to pull over and I'd lecture them.

 

Strawman. The issue is what people do in their own homes.

Yer talkin' to the wrong guy. Go to a resturaunt here, and I'll bet 60% of the folks in it are packin'. I am not afraid of armed people.

Agasin, the issue is the home, not in public.

If you refuse to talk to me intelligently, then I will do the same to you.

Are you suggesting cameras in people's bathrooms to prevent this ? You are a straight-up totalitarian Maoist if you are.

Polluting affects others. You infringe on other's rights when you do it. You don't when you engage in personally destructive habits in the privacy of your own home, which is my consistent stance. Faulty analogy.

Again, this is not a behavior hidden away in one's home. You are losing the argument, and are swinging wildly.

See my polluting comparison.

 

Why should a person be permitted to pour oil into any drain that dumps into the sewer system?

 

Come to my neck of the woods in Alabama. It would be easier for you to count the number of people who aren't carrying.

I was a little confused about this one. My kids rode motorcycles all the time when they were twelve. In fact, by the time they were twelve, they probably had more time on a motorcycle than I had when I was twenty.

What's the problem with letting kids ride motorcycles? Just like guns, you've got to teach them correctly when they're young.

Every post seems to be the proverbial attempt to throw spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. I wonder if he even understands that about two thirds of what he's saying doesn't even have anything to do with the issue at hand.

 

They shouldn't.