|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2004 : 13:24:39 [Permalink]
|
We all can complain for hours for endless reasons why both parties are capable of driving America straight into the ground, but really, isn't that what America is all about? We're not so concerned with who does what, rather, who gets to spend the most money on his/her campaign. Yeah, it's rather unfair, being that the most eligible leaders of our country are being kept hidden in the shadows, but the media has chosen Kerry for presidential candidate (the media, the corporations, the Democrats) and Kerry has chosen Edwards (of all people!!! It's almost too perfect, though, America WOULD elect a dizzy VP candidate that can talk to dead people and console all of the fears most have of death, pretending that it doesn't exist*. I mean, America chooses leaders that cater to the desires of the people, much like Californians instated ARNOLD SWARZENNEGER as their governor... I mean, c'mon! Not to say Edwards or Swarzenneger do not have the capability of leading the masses, but what makes me wonder is, why haven't the guys from the Man Show decide to run for election?) I planned on voting this election, but the candidates look dismal. It's either Kerry or Bush, but honestly ,I don't believe that I'll vote this year, it's looking hopeless. Unless, by some miracle, Americans decide to revolt and elect Ralph Nader... that'll be the day. And I don't believe in miracles
* I think I may be on to a pattern here. Why would Kerry choose Edwards for his campaign? Well, as Bush has terrorism as his gig, what would drive people away from the reality of death and destruction would be a gentle man reaffirming our delusions that death doesn't REALLY exist. All of those soldiers that have died in warfare in the East, they're not really dead! Watching "Crossing Over" I can't help but feel that's what it's all about. Mostly deluded emotional women sobbing at the feet of Edwards pleading to have "closure" and what Edwards does is make a lot of money off of a scam. So it's okay to believe that your little puppy Rex is in a better place and is always beside you, no matter what, because if humans can't understand it, it doesn't ever REALLY exist. Kerry is actually quite an intelligent man. He knows how to appeal to the crowds! Kerry knows how to manipulate Americans just as Bush does, and as this campaign progresses, we'll be able to see that just as well. Perhaps having Bush around for another 4 years might actually be a GOOD thing... maybe, just maybe, Americans, and the world itself, will question the actions of the leaders more, being more skeptical, if you will, and seek to elect someone that would bring dramatic reform. Who knows?
I hate to mention this, but I know I must, SARCASM IS PREVALENT IN MY REPLIES. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
 |
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:18:15 [Permalink]
|
| satan's mom, I hope you do vote, even if it's for a candidate who has no chance in hell of winning. Just look through all the candidates, find the one that you agree most with and who hasn't been an unrepentant asshole and vote. Sure it might not make any difference now, but what if our great-great-grandparents had started a movement where everyone just voted for whoever they thought had integrity and could get the job done instead of who had the best chance of winning? We might have had actual choices by now. So, do it for your great-great-grandkids! That'll be our motto: Think of the great-great-grandchildren! |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 17:20:09 [Permalink]
|
Les, I don't appreciate the attacking tone of your posts, nor the implication that I haven't done my research, nor pretending that I said alcohol and cigarettes were OK--and especially not the implication that I have to be a skeptic the way that YOU define a skeptic, or that I'm obligated to be a skeptic in the way that YOU are a skeptic.
Finally, the fact that I support efforts to stop drug use hardly makes me a hypocrite and I don't at all appreciate the comparsion to Rush Limbaugh--a useless junkie if ever there was one. I'm under no obligation to "tolerate" addicts of any kind. Should I tolerate the drunk who on July 4th totaled my ex-almost-husband's car and certainly would have killed him, had he been still in the car? Or the junkie who stole my car when I had the flu, so I had to walk to the doctors when I was sick? Or the addict who stole my baby brother's baseball card collection out of his bedroom? I suggest you back off from this, because my experiences are obviously more personal than yours.
As it so happens, I know a LOT about addiction. I'm also aware that most drug efforts fail. I will not, however, subscribe to the theory that we should legalize them, or that addicts are victims, or that we should rotate on our thumbs and weep for the addicts of the world while doing nothing. Addicts victimize others with stunning regularity and cost society tremendously. I'll save my compassion for those they hurt.
I'm also really, really tired of reading your stunningly negative, fairly nasty, and unhelpful lambasting of the Democrats--most of whom bust their asses to make the world a better place for everybody.
I'm sorry you feel that a party must be 100% perfect in order to support it, because that isn't thinking critically at all; it's just bashing and will get you nowhere. But wait...the 'third party' candidates are just that: nowhere. And funny thing: the Democrats have about half the country's support right now. We all must be just stupid lemmings, huh? It couldn't be because we believe in the bulk of what they do.
So...carry on without me. |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 18:12:35 [Permalink]
|
Hehe. I'm glad you added the humor caveat, Kil, because I was warming up my typing fingers to rip you a new one! 
I completely understand the wish to get rid of George W. Bush. I think the man's an abomination. And I understand the fears people have of seeing him get another four years in the oval office. Believe me, after all the encounters I've had with people - both on the internet and in the streets of Michigan collecting signatures - I've heard just about every argument there is on the subject.
But I'd like to take this opportunity to offer folks here a somewhat different perspective - if only for a moment. Or, at the very least, shed a bit of light on the reasoning some of us have for staying with Nader.
I agree that 'Dubya' is dangerous. But I don't see him as THE problem. Rather, I see him as a symptom of a much larger problem - the corruption of our political process. And, because of the way the system is rigged, I don't see it ending with him. In fact, I see a political playing field that will continue to slant more and more toward those who have the most money and the most effective ideological base - namely, the Republicans.
You think President George W. Bush is scary, try "President Tom Delay" or "President Condoleeza Rice." And who knows what cretins the conservative reactionary establishment have waiting in the wings; people who will surely have more money (and more brains).
Given both major parties' rush to the right, I don't expect the Republicans to field any moderates any time soon, and the Democratic candidates will likely only get worse, given the vise-like control the Democratic Leadership Council now seems to have on the DNC. And how long are the progressive rank-and-file going to be mollified with the warning that "now is not the time."
Someone famous (Noam Chomsky?) recently likened the choice between John Kerry and George W. Bush to having at least a "tiny ledge" for progressives to stand on or not having anywhere to stand at all. And I believe that's the best analogy yet - for the mindset of so many people in the face of this election. Democrats, progressives and independents have become so ensconsed in the strategy of perilously holding on to what tiny little ledge we have left that we seem to have given up fighting up for anything else.
I believe that now is actually the BEST time for independents and third party candidates. After all, when are the parties and candidates going to be most receptive to independent issues and broadening their base, when they're either comfortably behind or ahead of each other, or when they're neck-and-neck, scrambling for undecided votes? Now, more than ever, is when we actually have a chance to be heard by the powers that be.
We can, of course, try to reason with them and even work within the major parties (and you can see where that's getting Dennis Kucinich), or you can speak to them in the only language they seem to understand - poll numbers. Threaten their power, and see how quickly they respond. We've got to break out of this mindset that WE NEED THEM to save us from Bush and his minions.
THEY NEED US! And lest we forget, they work for us. Now is the time to demand that they fix the money-driven political system so clods like George W. Bush can no longer rise to the top rungs of political power in acrobatic defiance of the "Peter principle." Now is the time to demand that our 'representatives' - both Democratic and Republican - begin to rid our government of the corruption that indentures them to their corporate and special interest paymasters instead of the people they were elected to serve.
When I was a lad in school, they used to teach us about "self-fulfilling prophesies." According to the theory, people would rise only to the level that you expected of them. For example, if you expected a student to do poorly, more often than not, he would meet those expectations. But if you challenged him to do better, he would rise to the occasion.
I believe we need to once again begin raising our expectations with our elected leaders. And we have just the perfect instrument in Ralph Nader to convey the message in the most convincing of terms. We need to begin expecting MORE, not LESS of them, and I believe that, in time, they'll rise to the challenge. And if, not we'll find someone else who will.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 18:31:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Les, I don't appreciate the attacking tone of your posts,
I don't believe my posts attack anything other than your arguments. If someone else here believes that I have "attacked" you in some way, please let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
nor the implication that I haven't done my research,
Then, please, prove me wrong. Provide me with some facts instead of opinions.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
nor pretending that I said alcohol and cigarettes were OK--
I never said that you said that, though you certainly imply it. If you believe that people who do less dangerous drugs should be put in prison and people who take the more dangerous tobacco and alcohol should not (in spite of your argument that the government should stop people from hurting themselves), then you're saying they're okay. That's okay. I think tobacco and alcohol are okay, too. As long as they're not abused.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
and especially not the implication that I have to be a skeptic the way that YOU define a skeptic, or that I'm obligated to be a skeptic in the way that YOU are a skeptic.
Merriam-Websters defines "skepticism" as 1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics.
So, I suppose you are a skeptic when it comes to Republicans.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Finally, the fact that I support efforts to stop drug use hardly makes me a hypocrite and I don't at all appreciate the comparsion to Rush Limbaugh--a useless junkie if ever there was one.
Another reason I don't believe you've done an iota of research on the topic is that you actually think that the drug war has had "limited success" or that it constitutes an effort to stop drug use. Repeating behavior that has proven ineffective is not an "effort," it's a willful deception and/or waste of time.
The drug war has demonstrably caused more harm to more people than the drugs it purports to fight. In terms of death and lives ruined, this is thoroughly documented for those who care to look it up.
I'm sorry you don't "appreciate" the comparison to Rush, but why not prove it's not apt? You think people who safely use marijuana and heroin should be in prison and that people who abuse alcohol and tobacco should be allowed to walk free. Rush feels the same way. Sorry, but it's true.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I'm under no obligation to "tolerate" addicts of any kind.
But that doesn't mean you have the right to imprison any addict you please based on arbitrary standards.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Should I tolerate the drunk who on July 4th totaled my ex-almost-husband's car and certainly would have killed him, had he been still in the car? Or the junkie who stole my car when I had the flu, so I had to walk to the doctors when I was sick? Or the addict who stole my baby brother's baseball card collection out of his bedroom? I suggest you back off from this, because my experiences are obviously more personal than yours.
Please. My step-brother killed himself with alcohol. My brother has struggled with addiction. It's killing my father. Best not to assume personal things regarding people you know nothing about.
What percentage of addicts commit property crimes? If I had to bet, I'd say you have absolutely no idea. Should addicts who commit property crimes go to jail? Of course, just like the non-addicts who commit most property crime.
Your subjectivity (personal experience trumps objective fact) weakens your skepticism. I hope that doesn't make you sad or frustrated. I'm only telling you something that most all skeptics agree with: subjectivity is not as useful as objectivity when it comes to problem-solving.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I will not, however, subscribe to the theory that we should legalize them, or that addicts are victims, or that we should rotate on our thumbs and weep for the addicts of the world while doing nothing. Addicts victimize others with stunning regularity and cost society tremendously.
Prove that addicts victimize others more than non-addicts with some numbers or stop embarrassing yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I'm also really, really tired of reading your stunningly negative, fairly nasty, and unhelpful lambasting of the Democrats--most of whom bust their asses to make the world a better place for everybody.
I'm lambasting Democratic leaders and have been specific in doing so. You seem to take everything personally. Try to relax.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I'm sorry you feel that a party must be 100% perfect in order to support it, because that isn't thinking critically at all; it's just bashing and will get you nowhere.
Show me where I said a party must be 100% perfect. You can't, because I've never said that. 100% perfection is an unattainable goal. I just prefer political parties that don't condone mass injustice. How negative, how cynical, how unreasonable of me!
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
So...carry on without me.
A pleasure and a relief, ma'am. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/20/2004 19:25:03 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 19:19:49 [Permalink]
|
| Nicely said, Paladin. And positive, too! |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 19:50:30 [Permalink]
|
Les, you sound like a bully. Or perhaps worse.
You want me to think like an independent, when I'm a proud and loyal Democrat. I have explained to you, several times, that I don't have to agree with all actions by all Democrats do to support any given Democrat or support the party in general. Yet, somehow, because I don't agree with your criticisms of them, I'm not skeptical? Because I don't create volumes of posts calling them murderers, I'm not skeptical?
And, further yet, you define how someone should feel about any given issue, and if they don't take their position to the extent YOU feel they should take it, then you label them "hypocrites." How convenient. Hey...if you support gay rights but you don't watch gay porn to prove how comfortable you are with it, you're a hypocrite. And if you love children but don't donate at least, oh, 8% of your income to children's causes, you're a hypocrite. How does THAT feel? Unfair and unreasonable, huh?
Legalizing alcohol didn't make it any less addictive, and it didn't make drunks any better drivers. Legalizing cocaine won't make it suddenly safer for your heart and won't stop it from eroding your nasal pasages. And making murder legal wouldn't stop murder, either, or make it right.
You know the statistics are out there to back up what I say. I don't usually post them in situations like this and you're not listening to me anyway, but...
http://starbulletin.com/2003/09/14/news/story3.html--on Hawaii's drug and crime problems
"From 1980-1997, the drug incarceration rate rose over fourfold and crime and drug use began a steady unprecedented decline. Murder rates fell by over 25%, burglary rates dropped 41%, teen drug use reduced by more than a third, and heavy cocaine and heroin use levels fell. With peak drug incarceration rates, many cities, such as New York, reached record low crime levels."--Ethan A. Nadelmann, J.D., Ph.D., on pbs.org
I've also read research, which I'm too tired to look up again, that shows that alcohol and drugs increase the risk of domestic violence, homicide, and rape. I thnk that's pretty good evidence of drug users victimizing others. Ask any psychiatrist or counselor about the typical patterns of addicts, or read up on it yourself. When your addiction is your God, all manner of abysmal behavior becomes OK. True for all drug users all the time? Of course not. Strong correlations and evidence of the removal of inhibitions, loss of ability to think clearly, reduced judgment...? Uh, yeah.
And I'm sure you can find statistics that show that putting people in jail doesn't stop crime, that addicts are the victims of an oppressive police state, etc. That's how complex and controversial issues are argued on the 'net and elsewhere, because there are NO easy solutions and NO absolute truth. That's why I tend to talk about my own experience more often in these situations as a way to explain where I'm coming from and to avoid the "my statistics are better than your statistics" stuff.
Y'know...never mind. You really ought to read about what heroin does to the human body and its staggering addiction potential, though. Because I doubt many, if anyone, could use it "safely."
I'll take the road I know will work eventually: supporting viable progressive and/or liberal candidates who will help me make the world look like what I want it to look like, however imperfect those candidates may be. I don't need anybody's permission or approval to do that, least of all some stranger on the 'net. 
Good night.
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 00:27:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Les, you sound like a bully. Or perhaps worse.
That's funny, because you're the only one calling names here. Name-calling isn't really very nice. Why am I a bully? Because I've challenged your long-held assumptions? Because I've described your beliefs regarding drugs as hypocritical? What else have I done besides that? Good lord, didn't you say you were done here? I so wish you were.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
You want me to think like an independent, when I'm a proud and loyal Democrat. I have explained to you, several times, that I don't have to agree with all actions by all Democrats do to support any given Democrat or support the party in general. Yet, somehow, because I don't agree with your criticisms of them, I'm not skeptical? Because I don't create volumes of posts calling them murderers, I'm not skeptical?
Again, you're taking everything way too personally. I don't want you to do anything. I don't want you to believe anything or think in any particular way. I have only pointed out the inherent weaknesses in your emotional, subjective arguments. I'm sorry that you're taking that personally, when it's not you I'm criticizing, but rather your baseless conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
And, further yet, you define how someone should feel about any given issue, and if they don't take their position to the extent YOU feel they should take it, then you label them "hypocrites."
You can misrepresent my arguments if it makes it easier to deal with the emotional turmoil they've obviously caused you, but my posts are clear and easily reviewed. Your arguments regarding drugs (and somewhat regarding political parties) are hypocritical because you don't apply consistent standards across the board. That's all.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Legalizing alcohol didn't make it any less addictive, and it didn't make drunks any better drivers. Legalizing cocaine won't make it suddenly safer for your heart and won't stop it from eroding your nasal pasages. And making murder legal wouldn't stop murder, either, or make it right.
Ah, so now it's a moral issue. Having a little cocaine is like murder? Smoking a joint is morally worse than having a beer? Well, since you don't enjoy drugs, I suppose they must be immoral. Are you sure you're not a Republican?
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
http://starbulletin.com/2003/09/14/news/story3.html--on Hawaii's drug and crime problems
"From 1980-1997, the drug incarceration rate rose over fourfold and crime and drug use began a steady unprecedented decline. Murder rates fell by over 25%, burglary rates dropped 41%, teen drug use reduced by more than a third, and heavy cocaine and heroin use levels fell. With peak drug incarceration rates, many cities, such as New York, reached record low crime levels."--Ethan A. Nadelmann, J.D., Ph.D., on pbs.org
Wow. You got a quote from a real Ph.D. who's convinced that correlation equals causation. I'm wearily unsurprised.
Each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000.
Source: US Census Data and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
In 1988 in New York City, 85% of crack-related crimes were caused by the market culture associated with illicit crack sales, primarily territorial disputes between rival crack dealers.
Source: Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.
The average "dealer" holds a low-wage job and sells part-time to obtain drugs for his or her own use.
Source: Reuter, P., MacCoun, R., & Murphy, P., Money from Crime: A Study of the Economics of Drug Dealing in Washington DC (Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1990), pp. 49-50.
In 1973, there were 328,670 arrests logged in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for drug law violations. In 2002, that number rose to 1,538,813 arrests for drug law violations logged in the UCR. Also in 2002, there were a reported 620,510 arrests for all violent crimes, out of a total 13,741,438 arrests for all offenses.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1973. Note: 1973 data supplied by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2002 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2003), p. 234, Table 29.
A study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University confirms what many criminologists have long known: alcohol is associated with more violent crime than any illegal drug, including crack, cocaine, and heroin. Twenty-one percent of violent felons in state prisons committed their crimes while under the influence of alcohol alone. Only 3% were high on crack or powder cocaine alone and only 1% were using heroin alone.
Federal statistics show that a large percentage of criminal offenders were under the influence of alcohol alone when they committed their crimes (36.3%, or a total of 1,919,251 offenders). Federal research also shows for more than 40% of convicted murderers being held in either jail or State prison, alcohol use was a factor in the crime.
Tobacco kills over 400,000 Americans a year. The #2 killer is "poor diet and physical inactivity," also killing 400,000 a year. Heroin (which is less addictive than nicotine) and all other illegal drugs kill about 17,000 Americans a year.
So, if you're really interested in public health, and you believe that people who negatively affect public health should be arrested, then, in the face of the above statistics, you have to rethink what people should be arrested for (if you're willing to be intellectually honest, that is). If you still don't think alcohol should be illegal while clinging to your belief that drug users should be arrested, that's, by definition, hypocritical.
Yes, I have my stats and you have, um, yours. I hope you don't find them to be bullying (though I have no control over that). This has become exactly like arguing with a Republican loyalist or a young-Earth creationist. I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree and get on with our lives.
|
| Edited by - Les on 07/21/2004 00:28:39 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 06:04:04 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Les, you seem to be incapable of respecting, let alone considering, any view which differs from your own. Your posts show little respect for me or my thinking, or even for me as an individual. That makes you a bully. And I don't care if that's an ad hominimem attack.
My views are consistent with the complexity of a complex world and complex issues. I'm unimpressed with people who seek to "challenge my long-held assumptions" (sorry, but that was funny.) You've responded to things I haven't even said, so you don't even know what my assumptions are. And no, bullying and name-calling (yes, "hypocrite" is name calling) doesn't challenge anything.
My posts actually show a greater understanding of the drug problem than yours, Les, because I'm aware of statistics on both sides of the argument. I understand its complexity, and the tenaciousness of addiction. I also despise the politicalization of public health issues, which is what both sides do to this issue.
I knew you'd let loose with a barrage of statistics about the poor oppresed druggies of the world. For every one of your statistics, I could offer you evidence that education programs work, or that incarceration works, etc. That's the nature of drug and crime research; the causes and solutions are complex and nebulous. You disdain "correlation" studies, which are not invalid, then you offer correlation studies of your own.
Alcohol, unlike heroin (cough), can be used safely. I can have half a beer in front of the TV and fall asleep, and my health is not significantly harmed, nor is anyone else's. I can cook with wine (the alcohol cooks out, by the way) and nobody's health is harmed.
Cigarettes, however, are a drug and drug delivery system, pure and simple. I don't know why they're not illegal; but I don't run the universe.
You might try approaching people with respect, Les. It makes you a nicer person and might get people to listen to you more. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 10:32:44 [Permalink]
|
Tell you what, Renae, if anyone else here believes that I've attacked "you" instead of your arguments, I'll apologize immediately. If there's anyone here who thinks that I've been disrespectful towards them or you, I'll apologize.
If no one comes forward to say that I've been disrespectful towards you or anyone else, then you might want to consider the fact that you're emotionally unprepared for a vigorous, objective challenge to your belief system.
I've seen people like doomar and verlch and even hippy4christ take much worse than anything I've said to you and none of them (that I've seen) have whined about being bullied. This is a forum where ideas are challenged and defended. If you can't defend your ideas without accusing the challenger of being a bully or of being disrespectful, then perhaps you should post on sites where ideas are only accepted and embraced so that your feelings won't get hurt.
But, I think, as long as you persist in your (proudly!) ad hominem attacks, I will stop replying to you.
Again, if anyone else here believes I've been disrespectful or bullying, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out to me. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 13:34:24 [Permalink]
|
Les wrote:quote:
Again, if anyone else here believes I've been disrespectful or bullying, I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out to me.
Okay.- Reading the dictionary at her was pretty disrespectful, especially when only definition 2b really applies here.
- "In terms of death and lives ruined, this is thoroughly documented for those who care to look it up." Asking others to look up evidence in support of your position is contradictory to your desire for Renae to support her own arguments, and thus bullying.
- "Prove that addicts victimize others more than non-addicts with some numbers or stop embarrassing yourself." That's extremely disrespectful. There are a zillion other ways you could have said the same thing, much more politely. Simply dropping the phrase which begins "or" would have been a good start.
- "Try to relax." Patronizing and unnecessary.
- "A pleasure and a relief, ma'am." Was there a need to kick her while she was down?
- "You can misrepresent my arguments if it makes it easier to deal with the emotional turmoil they've obviously caused you..." Clearly this was an "ad hominem attack" as you and Renae are using the term. To complain about them, but use them, is hypocritical. Being hypocritical while criticizing Renae for being hypocritical is even more hypocritical. Hypocrisy regarding such personal matters is surely disrespectful, and, since you've been harping on hypocrisy so much, bullying.
I hope the point has been made, but if not, more examples are available.
Note that I am not saying that I think Renae has been innocent of disrespect towards you, I just have a feeling that she's well aware of the parts of her posts which are less than civil. Whether she cares about it or not is another question (I've got a suspicion, though). You, Les, asked for the above, however, while Renae did not (that I remember).
Let me further say that the Politics folder is inherently different from most of the other folders on the SFN. It is difficult to be properly skeptical of any political position, as the hard data is most-often lacking, and applying proper arguments to tenuous and complex data is tough, to say the least. For example, as we've seen, both you and Renae are tossing out references which suffer from "correlation equals causation" problems, as far as I can tell. For another example, what - precisely - does "alcohol use was a factor in the crime" mean? Is it causative (and how would they know), or just correlative?
At any rate, given the difficulties inherent in defending the "fact" that this country would be better off if such-and-such occured, in a strictly skeptical sense, such critical-thinking standards must be more relaxed in this folder than in others. All arguments about in which direction this (or any) country "should go" are speculative, at best, due to their predictive nature, and this caveat must be understood by all members of this site. And since party platforms are all about where this country should go, this also applies to comparisons between parties - and even individual candidates.
As a side note: at least one admin here would like to see the Politics folder simply go away, but that would mean that General Discussion would get these sorts of threads, and since that folder doesn't fall under the "please maintain skepticism" umbrella, threads like this would probably be a lot worse.
Now, back to the topics at hand, I'd like to offer some specific challenges to you, Les. You wrote (way back when):quote:
Now, if you care to actually do a little research and refute the fact that alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of times the people that illegal drugs do, that they cost us thousands of times more money, then perhaps you wouldn't be a hypocrite on the issue.
Since these are your claims, I believe you should support them fairly. In other words, would "alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of times the people that illegal drugs do" if illegal drugs weren't illegal, and were as cheap as smokes and liquor? Or, in this day and age (not 70+ years ago), would they still kill 100s more if they were expensive and illegal, like other drugs are today?
Second, can you substantiate your claim that alcohol and tobacco would "cost us thousands of times more money" if the playing field were leveled as above for the death rate?quote:
Then again, since it's impossible to refute the fact that alcohol and tobacco are so much, much more destructive than all illegal drugs combined, the point is moot.
Ah, the above two challenges must not consist of just a comparison with some individual currently-illegal drug, but "all illegal drugs combined." I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that the ratio of problems would remain at 100s to one if one could buy a pack of "heroettes" for a couple bucks at the corner grocer, or if one could grab a six-pack of Crackweiser on a whim (or, conversely, if cigarette and alcohol use dropped to the levels of illegal drug use).
Note well that I am not making an argument from incredulity here, but am simply emphasizing my opinion that if one were to compare apples to apples, instead of comparing legal drug use to illegal drug use, these costs in both lives and money may be much more equitable. I admit to not having done the research, but you, Les, seem to have, and should be able to show evidence in support of the "level playing field" hypothesis (that with the same laws applying to all kinds of drugs, that tobacco and alcohol would still be "much, much more destructive"). Otherwise, your conclusions with regard to tobacco and alcohol are based upon bad premises.
Further, you wrote:quote:
...and prescription drugs which kill 100,000 Americans every year, nearly a hundred times the number of illegal drug deaths...
I hope you're not just quoting some old anti-pharmaceutical canard here. Where does this fascinating number come from, and does it take into account how many people would have died had the prescription drugs in question not been available at all?
And, you said,quote:
Heroin (which is less addictive than nicotine) and all other illegal drugs kill about 17,000 Americans a year.
While I can usually ignore hyperbole, it's egregious in this case, since 100,000 divided by 17,000 is not "nearly a hundred," but is nearly six. I had been led to believe from your posts that you had the facts in hand when you made the "nearly a hundred times" comment, but conclude, now, that your surety was misplaced - to put things in the best light possible.
You've also pointed out that tobacco kills 400,000 people a year. To make alcohol and tobacco, combined |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 14:13:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and prescription drugs which kill 100,000 Americans every year, nearly a hundred times the number of illegal drug deaths...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you're not just quoting some old anti-pharmaceutical canard here. Where does this fascinating number come from, and does it take into account how many people would have died had the prescription drugs in question not been available at all?
I think he may have this particular number from some old report about preventable deaths in hospitals, which included specific numbers about medication reactions and administration errors that caused some deaths. the 100,000 figure, if memory serves, was the total approximate number of preventable deaths from all causes reported... not just from medication errors/reactions.
One of the local ambulance-chaser lawyers down here quotes this stat in some of his commercials.... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 15:46:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Reading the dictionary at her was pretty disrespectful, especially when only definition 2b really applies here.
If two people are disagreeing about a definition, what else to do than go to the dictionary? How is it disrespectful to read a definition from a dictionary?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Asking others to look up evidence in support of your position is contradictory to your desire for Renae to support her own arguments, and thus bullying.
I agree I should have presented the evidence. But to suggest that's "bullying" is incorrect, I believe. To "bully" someone is to unfairly take advantage of their weaknesses, not ask them to provide evidence I should have provided myself.
I'm tempted to look up "bullying," but I wouldn't want you to think I was being disrespectful. 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Prove that addicts victimize others more than non-addicts with some numbers or stop embarrassing yourself." That's extremely disrespectful. There are a zillion other ways you could have said the same thing, much more politely. Simply dropping the phrase which begins "or" would have been a good start.
I agree. I apologize, Renae.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Try to relax." Patronizing and unnecessary."A pleasure and a relief, ma'am." Was there a need to kick her while she was down?
I disagree. When someone accuses me of "attacking" them when I'm not, I will encourage them to relax. Following one ad hominem after another, she said she was through with the argument and I simply expressed relief.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"You can misrepresent my arguments if it makes it easier to deal with the emotional turmoil they've obviously caused you..." Clearly this was an "ad hominem attack" as you and Renae are using the term. To complain about them, but use them, is hypocritical. Being hypocritical while criticizing Renae for being hypocritical is even more hypocritical. Hypocrisy regarding such personal matters is surely disrespectful, and, since you've been harping on hypocrisy so much, bullying.[/*][/list=1]I hope the point has been made, but if not, more examples are available.
I didn't "attack" Renae with my "emotional turmoil" comment. I described what I perceived as her emotional state. I NEVER, not once, attacked her personally or her personality as she did mine or assumed things about her life life as she did mine. Again, I disagree that I "bullied" her.
That said, I did agree to apologize if anyone else thought I'd been disrespectful or bullying, and so, Renae, if you're reading this, I apologize. I should have stopped our argument long before I attempted to.
Having read lots of posts in other folders, I've observed a lot of arguments that, by your definition were "disrespectful" and "bullying," though I would have described them as "spirited." Maybe that's the place for me to go.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since these are your claims, I believe you should support them fairly. In other words, would "alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of times the people that illegal drugs do" if illegal drugs weren't illegal, and were as cheap as smokes and liquor? Or, in this day and age (not 70+ years ago), would they still kill 100s more if they were expensive and illegal, like other drugs are today?
Dave, you are 100% right that I pulled the "thousands of times" reference out of my ass in a frenzied state. I retract it.
I was completely wrong to carelessly throw around "hundreds of times" or "thousands of times" before refreshing my memory on the numbers involved. There are a lot of resources and statistics available to support my claims that the drug war has failed (in terms of harm reduction) and I should have looked at them closely before responding.
That said, I think I should probably stick to my fundamental philosophy that the government cannot own a person's mind or body and argue from there. If there was a drug that killed everybody who used it the first time, I believe that it should still be available for people to use, if they choose, because I believe a person's body and mind are autonomous from the government, and that, of course, that autonomy stops when it steps on the rights of others. If a drug user victimizes or otherwise puts someone in danger, they should be imprisoned. But I believe that most drug users don't do this, as I believe that the way to decrease drunk driving isn't to arrest all drinkers. This is a moral belief, beyond the ability to demonstrate objectively.
However, my belief that the drug war has failed and causes more harm than good is something that I believe is well documented.
I also believe that, in the future, when political comments appear to be upsetting a person I'm disagreeing with, I'll be sure to stop the conversation sooner than later, so that I don't get upset, myself. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/21/2004 15:49:25 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 15:56:06 [Permalink]
|
| I'd like to add that I hope this folder stays. Politics is something to which not enough skepticism is applied. Whether it's Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin or Bush and WMD's, skepticism is a vital element in arena of political thought. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 17:41:55 [Permalink]
|
First, thank you Dave W.
Les, to say I'm "emotionally unprepared for a challenge to my belief system" is yet another demeaning comment. Which belief system are you referring to? My belief in the Democrats? I read slurs against them every day; I read tons of political writing of all persuasions (liberal, conservative, and otherwise.) Nothing you could say could top Ann Coulter or her ilk. And I was annoyed, not in emotional turmoil. It's the internet, for heaven's sake.
You can't be referring to my beliefs about the drug war, because I never really stated them. For the record, I'm against the legalization of drugs, in favor of treatment and education programs that work, in favor of harsher sentencing for DUIs, in favor of taking away driver's licenses of multiple drunk drivers, and against ridiculous sentences for recreational pot users. I don't consider all drugs to be equally harmful or equally addictive, and I am doubtful that addiction is a true disease (in the sense that cancer is a disease.)
Having said all that, I'm aware of the limitations of the drug war. I don't have the answer as to how to win it; perhaps it's unwinnable in our lifetime. Legalization didn't work for cigarettes and alcohol; prohibition didn't work for alcohol; stopping the supply seems impossible and stopping the demand isn't too successful either.
I'm aware that correlation doesn't prove causation. My uncle is a biostatistician and I worked for some of the top health researchers in the country (no, I'm not remotely a scientist, but I read and I try to learn.) It seems to me that many studies of crime and drug use are, by necessity, correlational research--which doesn't invalidate them, but it's noteworthy to point out their limitations.
A hint...you catch more flies with honey. And sometimes reason. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
