Recent posts by woodythedon on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / legalization of marijuana

The fundamental problem with this debate is that the people who hold the power to affect the law are exactly the kind of people who have never had any experience of using it. Some people like it, some people like it too much, and some people can’t handle it. But I’ve never heard off anyone who has actually used weed that the affects of the substance itself are so extreme they should be banned.

In any case, just look at Holland. I live there now and it is one of the most prosperous countries in the world with a relatively low crime rate. Shock horror society actually functions. People do get up and go to work every day without getting high all the time.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Eurozone "Crunch Time" Make Or Break.

It looks like the 17 Eurzone members have decided on a new treaty. Whether or not it will actually save the Euro is another matter. Frankly I’m relieved Cameron kept us out of it. We didn’t cause this mess so why on earth should we be expected to pay for it?

EDIT: Here are the details of the new treaty

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16104089

Topic: Serious Discussion / Swearing

It’s all about context. Being brought up in quite a rough part of London, I found the emphasis put on swearing was somewhat ridiculous. There were FAR bigger problems the teachers should have been dealing with than kids using foul language in each others company. I’m wondering if this is a particularly British thing, the remnants of Victorian/Edwardian etiquette or not.

That said, I don’t think it’s too much to ask people to not swear with strangers. You never know what other people think about swearing, so why not just play it safe?

Topic: Serious Discussion / The right to duel

If you have an issue with someone that’s so severe you want to have a chance to kill them over it, then they’ve probably done something severe enough to warrant a conviction in a court of law. Even in cases which could be arguably justified, the cost of enforcing that the duel is fair and that the duellists understand the risks would be way too costly to administer. Either way though, get over it. I know it’s cheesy but violence is rarely the solution to any problem.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mass Legalization

Nope, cannabis would be an ideal substitute for morphine, if it was legal to prescribe. Just as effective, far fewer side effects.

Surely not though? In cases where the pain was so intense that morphine needed to be perscribed weed simply wouldn’t be strong enough? I’m no expert, but there’s a pretty massive difference between weed and what is effectively heroin lite.

I am just surprised, because obviously, as you say, morphine dosage has to be administered carefully, but surely when the pain is mild doctors don’t just resort to morphine in small doses. Aren’t there artificial painkillers and the like?

Not that I’m against the legalisation of weed or all drugs for that matter, but I just didn’t think this was an argument for it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Five most important military battles of all time

I’m not sure on any particular battle, but Cromwell winning the civil war in England was certainly the most important campaign outcome in post Medieval English history, since his rule gave us our first colonies, and sent us on the road to becoming a great colonial power that would have been unthinkable even 50 years previously.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Legalize LSD..?

Of course it should be legalised, or at least decriminalised. Anyone who has taken LSD will tell you how safe it is, or at least can be. The cases where people take too much than they can handle would probably be reduced under a semilegal/legal system, because I’m sure a government would feel obliged to provide better information about it. I live in Holland now, and in all the coffee shops, the staff are fairly well versed in the dangers of taking too much weed, are medically trained to deal with people whiting out and give out pamphlets on the dangers, that are actually quite interesting, and no way near as condescening and unrealistic as the drugs ed you get at school. I fail to see how a system like this with the safeguards in place would be worse than the current state of affairs. It’s better for the consumer, and supplier, and also for the government who save a ton of money, and could possibly make tons more taxing the stuff.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something that you wish that didn't exist in America and why

It is. In england, gun laws are super strict. We have the 2nd amendment. Which is why in england they have riots. And here we have protests.

This whole sentence is astonishingly unintelligent. Even by a right wing Yank’s standards. It may actually surprise you to know that the riots were caused by an exchange of gunfire, ending in he death of a Tottenham based drug dealer. The rest of the rioting was just the pent up aggression of alienated hood rats and naked opportunism.

In light of your statement, I’ll jump on the bandwagon with ignorance. The amount of bullshit I hear from Americans like you on here touting ‘facts’ is insane.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Trafficking

In some systems, the slaves would have set hours, protection from abuse, and even a minimum wage.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that just a job then?

Depends on the feminist. I know plenty of hardliners who’d support legalized prostitution so long as the prostitutes held shared control of the brothel/district, or gained some measure of worker’s rights to protect themselves from corrupt pimps.

Yea, the feminists I’ve spoken to are Swedish. I think it’s in their culture to be really pro women’s rights and all, but really anti things like prostitution. It’s their puritan preachiness I think.

Reminds me of season 2 of The Wire, where Beadie says what the illegal prozzies need is a union.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Trafficking

Legalise it and a lot of that stops.

Hey, I agree with you there. I think it would solve a lot of problems. Nevertheless try explaining this to a hardline feminist and see what happens. Believe me I’ve tried many a time, and I’ve been called some pretty nasty names.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human Trafficking

Ok, so lets discuss what can be done to stop human trafficking/slavery.

Legalising prostitution would go some way to lowering the amount of slaves, since so many of them are bought and sold into sex slavery. I saw a documentary about the sex slave trade in Britain, and it made it clear to me that the only way you can really stop sex trafficking is to legalise the sex trade and take the crime out of the equation.

However, I’m not sure exactly how big a proportion of slaves globally are sex slaves. Nevertheless it’s a start. As a side note, I do find it rather ironic that to stop the sex slave trade, you have to legalise prostitution. A moral quandrary for a feminist if ever there was one.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fat Tax?

And where will this money come from to look after them? The taxpayer. Me for one.

I’m not talking about looking after them, I’m talking about taxing them if they don’t look after themselves properly. If you don’t eat shitty food there’s no need for this to cost you anything.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fat Tax?

If there are people too stupid to look after themselves, that’s too bad. It is not up to me to look after them. Clean the gene pool.

I am not asking you to look after them. I am asking for ther government to force them to look after themselves through taxation. You need not be taxed if you aren’t eating unhealthy food. Look at it as government enforced personal responsibility if you wish.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Global Debt Crisis. Does anyone even remotely care?

Less regulation, say Hong Kong, results in a rising standard of living for for the masses.

Great Britain. Since the deregulation of the financial markets by Thatcher in the 1980s the gap between rich and poor has steadily risen.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fat Tax?

If people are not responsible enough to take care of themselves (yet are somehow considered responsible enough to vote), there is no way that society remains free.

The problem there isn’t with the government, it’s with stupid/ignorant people who don’t have any idea how to look after themselves or their families. I think it would be incredibly naive to say that everyone in society is capable of looking after themselves to be honest. Improve the education system to fix this probem? Oh wait, far too much government involved to do that. So what is your solution to this? I am sure I would be a libertarian too if I thought the average person could look after themselves properly, but evidently they can’t. Just to get back to the issue, look at how many obese people there are in America. Even with all our knowledge on the dangers of shitty food, people continue to eat it. Do you really think those individuals are looking after themselves?

EDIT:

To me, the best government is one that makes it’s citizens the most happy, not the government that allows its citizens the highest amount of freedom.

See Cuba.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fat Tax?

People want health care. Everyone won’t suddenly stop wanting it just because it was privatized.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that. What is doubtful however, is whether or not people would be able to afford privatised healthcare. Thinking in economic terms a ‘good’ as inelastic as healthcare would enable competitors to charge extortionate prices and still expect a relatively high level of demand. Making massive profits and screwing over the little man.

Just because there is a market for providing health care to poor people doesn’t mean it would be more profitable to do so for suppliers.

I think they are perversions that destroy true society as well as true compassion.

I think you need to travel to Europe mate. We’re not all compassionless monsters. Some of us are actually nice people.

They are probably too popular to get rid of democratically in some areas now,

I am also curious about this point, since isn’t the free market merely an extension of political democracy? If so many people continue to demand UHC, doesn’t that indicate that under a privatised system, given the choice people would rather it remained a collective institution?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fat Tax?

Originally posted by AaronB:

Get government out of the insurance and health care business. People have the freedom to eat what they want, but they are responsible for their own increased insurance premiums and health care expenses. No need to tax or to subsidize, or to take away people’s liberty.

If health care was privatised everywhere it would be much less efficient and cost everyone more. I’m sure UHC vs privatised system must have been discussed here before extensively, and thus shown UHC to be the better of the two systems. Ask most people what they would prefer ‘freedom’ or very cheap healthcare. I would be surprised if many chose the former.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fat Tax?

I don’t really see why not. In England it is much cheaper and convenient to buy fatty foods than healthy ones, leading to an obesity crisis among the working classes. Subsidise healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones (note I am saying healthy and not fatty). Sure some people will cry and wail about the nanny state, but they will be glad when at the age of 50 they don’t need a triple bypass at great expense to themselves/society depending on how healthcare is provided for in their country.

Topic: Serious Discussion / does u.s.a have a right to do this?

Well, assuming they build a fence within their borders, then I am pretty certain they have the right to do it. Whether or not it makes any practical or economic sense is another matter. And I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you. Between a drug war with Mexico, an ideological war in the Middle East, aswell as economic strife at home, I don’t think they will be gunning for Canada anytime soon.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Libya

Perhaps you should understand that there is over 20 tribes who have historically for thousands of years fought with each other and killed each other. It is in their blood. It is who they are. It is what they know.

Just because there are 20 tribes doesn’t mean there has to be tribal violence. I read this here on the guardian website today about that. This is a quote off of a blog by Mohammed A Bamyeh, proff of sociology at Pittsburgh University:

‘’In Libya, actual tribal allegiance, understood as the loyalty that members of one distinct tribe have to their fellows, has never been unconditional … Since the current uprising began, Libya’s various tribes have issued numerous statements about the situation, which largely reflect the patriotism that pervades these groups. My personal examination of a sample of 28 tribal declarations, issued between February 23 and March 9, 2011, reveals that the vast majority highlighted national unity or national salvation rather than tribal interests. These declarations also demonstrate that Libya’s tribes are not homogeneous entities, but rather are comprised of diverse members with varying social and economic backgrounds. This reality reflects the nature of Libyan society as a whole, which has a 90% urban population and in which inter-marriages across tribal lines are common.’’

I think this shows that the importance of tribes in Libya is being overstated in the Western media. Journalists like to generalise traits accross the Middle East, but Libya is not Iraq. We should be more worried about the tribes selling the captured Gaddafi weapons onto the global black arms market than using them to kill each other.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Marijuana Legalization

Do we really want to legalize this drug and have people smoking it in public, getting stoned all over the place? If they legalize it, it should have the provision that is it not allowed to be used in public.

I’ve recently moved to Holland, and here although it’s not technically illegal to smoke on the streets, no one does it where I live. The only place you see behaviour like that is in Amsterdam, and that’s because of all the tourists creating that culture of indifference. But in any big city centre you’ll see drunken youths going about their night out. At least people who smoke are chilled out. You’re much more likely to cause harm to others if you’re boozing.

Topic: Serious Discussion / On Carrying a Knife

What do you think are reasonable laws and why?

People should be able to own big knives at home since they are tools, even big scary ones. But I really don’t see any reason why people should be allowed to carry knives in public, or why anyone would want to. Of course people living in rural areas and such should be able to get whatever tools they need, but in a city? Nah.

Concealed or open?

Please remind me why you want to carry a concealed knife. This isn’t Assassin’s Creed.

How long? Does length include the handle or just the blade?

Length should be measured by the blade, since that’s what harms people. Any knife more than 3 inches long can seriously injure or kill, so if you want to carry a knife as a tool in public, I’m ok only with small Swiss Army type ones.

Is it to restrict the carry of switch/flip/gravity knife while allowing similar or even larger knives that are single position?

It is easier to hide a non single position knife, so I can see why they should be restricted.

Really my position here is the same on guns. There’s no reason to carry one. The protection argument is bullshit because the stats show it doesn’t work. The same goes for knives. The only reason people think they should be allowed to carry guns is because of an anachronistic constitutional law, and an obsession about rights no matter how dangerous they are. With knives you don’t have that excuse. So unless it’s a tool essential to your way of living, leave the knife at home. The law should reflect that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Our Era Has No Literature

The profit factor is a big one. Lots of classics were written by aristocrats who didn’t need money, and so didn’t churn out mediocre thrillers. Look at any bestsellers list nowadays and most of what you will see is tons of poor man’s versions of the Da Vinci code (which wasn’t even that good anyway).The big publishers want to make money, and writing mystery thrillers for the masses isn’t going to produce books of much substance.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Football Chant Censorship Justified?

And I also don’t think that the hissing can be called anti-Semitism.

So to draw a comparison within the football world, would you not label fans making monkey noises at black players (as happens in plenty of internationals in Russia and Central Europe) racism of some kind either? I am curious about this. Are you saying it’s not anti semitic in the context of football, but merely standard fan provocation in extremely bad taste?

I don’t see that happening among the “Yids”.

I suppose that’s another component of the equation I hadn’t mentioned earlier, in that the Spurs firm is also called the Yid Armey, so some officials seem to be worried about the connotations of organised violence.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: All drugs are legal.

The thing is, most drugs that are illegal now are fairly safe. It’s precisely because they are illegal they are made unsafe by dealers who cut their drugs to increase their supply. If drugs were legal, no doubt proper funding for research into maximising highs and minimising lows, and of course legit suppliers who are accountable to safety standards would have no incentive to cut it with anything dangerous.

Safest way to take is probably orally. Takes the longest time to enter your bloodstream as opposed to crushing it up and sniffing it or injecting it.

EDIT: For the record I suggest you start with MDMA before trying proper hallucinogens. It gives you a similar sense of euphoria but without the visuals and is a good way to see if you’ll actually like graduating onto harder stuff.