{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
This thread is inspired by another: view original post
Edited by Cultmeister:
4/25/2013 1:16:07 PM
22
What's the difference between the Gun debate and the Drug debate?
so guns should be allowed but drugs shouldn't?
please someone, explain the logic behind this because they seem like basically the same arguments to me.
Note: 'drugs' means all drugs, not just weed.
EDIT: i am NOT saying drugs and guns are the same, but that the arguments people use to ban one can easily be used against the other.
[u]arguments for banning either guns or drugs:[/u]
they can be dangerous to inexperienced users
they can harm or kill you and others
[u]arguments for not banning guns or drugs:[/u]
using them is a fun activity and when used properly and safely pose little risk to the user (note: in the case of drugs 'used properly and safely' does not include getting addicted)
a person has a right to the freedom to own and/or use them so long as they are not putting others in any harm or otherwise infringing their rights.
why should we treat them differently?
-
17 Replies in this Sub-ThreadDrugs aren't used in protecting yourself from the criminal element, wildlife, or a tyrannical government.
-
You look idiotic posting the same gif every post. Your own link confirmed my views. Allow me to quote from it directly... "a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another h : unrestricted use Examples of FREEDOM She has the freedom to do as she likes." Thanks again for proving yourself wrong and not even realizing it. It's really too good. People do not assign freedoms or they wouldn't be freedoms at all. They are indeed defined by nature, what else could possibly define them? You think someone granted you the freedom of speech? It's an inalienable right. The fact that tyranny exists isn't an argument. "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." -Thomas Jefferson They have no authority to oppress the minority, and infringing on a freedom or right is indeed oppression. You can't comprehend the point. Freedom is absolute, otherwise it wouldn't be a freedom. Really. Because you're such an adult all the time? You're a delusional fool.
-
[quote]You look idiotic posting the same gif every post.[/quote] I did it to rile you up. I'm going to keep doing it because now I know it riles you up. [quote]Your own link confirmed my views. Allow me to quote from it directly... -snip- Thanks again for proving yourself wrong and not even realizing it. It's really too good.[/quote] Your "definition" of freedom was exceptionally narrow and does not qualify as the "definition" of freedom. And again: The literary definition of freedom is pointless in terms of this discussion. Freedom in America includes many things but absolute freedom is not granted or allowed by the law. [quote]People do not assign freedoms or they wouldn't be freedoms at all. They are indeed defined by nature, what else could possibly define them? You think someone granted you the freedom of speech? It's an inalienable right. The fact that tyranny exists isn't an argument.[/quote] People define freedoms. And yes: Someone did grant me the freedom of speech. [quote]"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." -Thomas Jefferson[/quote] It's funny how you quote Jefferson where he uses the words "moral law" and use it as a justification to do immoral things. It's also funny because your quote of Jefferson doesn't help you. Is it moral to do X? No. Then it's not moral to do X because you have a million people saying it's okay. Should I also point out the hypocrisy of the founding fathers in terms of slavery? Or women's rights? [quote]They have no authority to oppress the minority, and infringing on a freedom or right is indeed oppression. You can't comprehend the point.[/quote] I'm comprehend the point: You have an extremist mindset. You've openly declared it several times in the past and it makes you all the more idiotic and stupid whenever you air it. Restriction of doing certain things to your person or the limitation to a certain extent of certain rights is not and will never be oppression no matter how hard you think it is and how much you scream it to be.
-
-
