Posted on 01/08/2002 11:15:02 AM PST by Texaggie79
I hope he will lurk for awhile and come back after his ideas have become a little more coherent. I don't see him being much over 14, so he has a long career ahead of him.
So, it's a battle between Dane and Sane? I would submit that Dane is not insane, but rather that he has an alternative reality paradigm that is unknown to the rest of us. I enjoy the rare glimpses at the Inner Dane among the straw men and post-hoc fallacies. There is some form of intelligence there; I just can't seem to get a lock on it.
To: exodus
"...While it's not as dangerous as tobacco,
smoking anything is unhealthy.
If the user eats the marijuana
instead of smoking
it there is no health risk.
# 417 by LazarusX
************************
Ummmm...brownies.
I know the problem. The only term I've been able to come up with that seems close to the mark is "malsentient", and that's not even in the dictionary.
| uninformed, uncultivated, unversed, uninstructed, untaught, uninitiated, untutored, unschooled, misguided, unenglightened; Phillistine; behind the age, shallow, superficial, green, rude, empty, half-learned, illiterate; unread, uninformed, uneducated, unlearned, unlettered, unbookish; empty-headed; pedantic, in the dark; benighted, belated; blinded, blindfolded; hoodwinked; misinformed; au bout de son latin, at the end of his tether, at fault; at sea (uncertain); caught tripping. | buffoon, rfarceur, merry-andrew, mime, tumbler, acrobat, mountebank, charlatan, posturemaster, harlequin, punch, pulcinella, scaramouch, clown; wearer of the cap and bells, wearer of the motley; motley fool; pantaloon, gypsy; jack-pudding, jack in the green, jack a dandy. |
In an attempt to reach you at a fine, limited, linear level, I will number the arguments generated by the last comment you made to me. I will then try to reach you at your level of linear function.
Dane- To put you in a quandry. Who is the bigger criminal in your eyes, the junkie shooting up in the middle of the street(not bothering anybody while shooting up) or the neighbor across the street who calls the police complaining about a public nuisance?(1)Would you automatically brand your neighbor a constitution hating statist?(2)
Scottiewottie- You are right, we have a quandry here. How can a junkie not bothering anyone be a public nuisance?(3)
Dane- I didn't ask you that. I asked you basically who you hold in more contempt, the junkie or the neighbor who called the cops. Was the neighbor correct for calling the police because of the junkie's actions?(4)
(1) The bigger criminal here is the junkie. But not because he is a junkie, nor for shooting up. I would say the criminal activity here is the nuisance of mischef, or even possibly trespassing. Clearly the only thing harmful to me or others in the neighborhood is that he is not welcome to practice his private behavior in my neighborhood. This is the only possible initiatory force this person has committed. A granny knitting booties for Hilter in the street would be just as guilty.(Sorry, humorless oblivion is my drug of choice! Smile.)
(2)A Libertarian society depends on citizens to be prepared, when able, to enforce the rule of law that they proscribe to government. It is both prudent and civil when you see nuisance that is unwelcome and potentially harmful, to confront it or report it. I would not expect my neighbor to be fully equipped to handle a trespassing junkie getting a fix on heroin, so calling the police would be conducting himself honorably.
(3)My question was more a criticism of your failure to make a congruent question. "Not bothering anybody" and "public nuisance" are not connective. A public nuisance by nature is either initiating force or has by position hazarded the ability to initiate harm or force to himself or community. The behavior is "bothering". "Bothering" is force.
(4)Yes.
Scottiewottie- Is he a nuisance because of his use of the street? If shooting up in the street is not a crime, just which nuisance law did he break?(5)Dane- Again I ask you who do you have more sympathy for, the junkie or the neighbor who is looking after his/her property values?(6)
(5)Just two more questions that were critical of your poor example and a desired attempt at hoping you could connect to the idea that, "if you are not bothering anyone there is no crime". Again, I had limited sucess based upon your defensive tome and observed pathology.
(6)My sympathy is with neither. The junkie may not even be aware of his conduct. The neighbor is simply doing what I would expect. Sympathy here does nothing to remedy the situation. Gratitude to the neighbor. Assistance to the junkie with whom I have no sympathy.
Scottiewottie- No, I would not call the neighbor a constitution hating statist. Why would I care if he was? I my Libertarian world I would have laws to hold his political actions(initiatory force) in check. (7)Dane- So would you castigate your neighbor for calling the police about the junkie shooting up in the middle of the street. A yes or no will be suffice.(8)
(7)Again a failed attempt at trying to fire a neural synapse of cascading discovery. My personal evaluations of my neighbor are mine. Stating them or even commenting on how I may feel about them in their behavior are wasted material. Far better if I learn how to deal with my problems than to project them on others.
(8)No. I really thought I answered this already, but linear cognition has its limits.
Scottiewottie- To the contrary, if I knew that the police would help this man far better than myself(because as a libertarian I would hope the police could to that), I would beat the neighbor to the phone and call the cops myself!Dane- So you don't trust the cops?(9) How would you personally help this man?(10) Would you personally pay for his treatment?(11) Or would you tell your neighbor tough luck, let him die in the gutter?(12)
(9)I thought I said I did trust the cops. I thought it important to pause and state that I would, particulary in a Libertarian society, trust a police force that punishes real crimes and cooperates with citizens in prevention.
(10)Treating drug addicts is not part of my intellectual acumen. If it were, yes.
(11)Yes, indirectly in taxes since rehabilitation is a worthy police action. Directly by contributing financially to volunteer organizations that would work on a referal basis with the police department as a community resource.
(12)I was not aware that my neighbor was the junkie. If he lived down the street I would certainly have a vested interest to be informed of his recovery if he wants it, his removal if he persists in public nuisance, and assisting him if he wants it. Letting him die, would be bad form and is far more likely in today's WOD.
Scottiewottie- More quandry. Why as a Libertarian, would I do that?(13)Dane- You will have to answer your own question. it's up to you if you like having junkies on the street in front of your house.(14)
(13)Again, I sympathize with your inability to attain evidentiary cognition. I think that your delusions of Libertarian government being uncaring and anarchistic could be part of the problem.
(14)As a citizen of a Libertarian nieghborhood you have an unwritten duty to protect and prevent criminal behavior. If you fail in your duty, you fail everyone.
Scottiewottie- Bonus question: Would it make a difference if the man was in your front yard doing the same thing?(15)Dane- If he was shooting up in my front yard, I would tell him to get off my property, and if he decided to say, "Okay I will go out into the street, that ain't your property." I would call the cops(16) although I may have a Libertarian/ACLU neighbor such as you, who would defend the junkie to shoot up on the street.(17)
(15)My question, but I'll answer it since you cannot handle the process with accuracy. If I saw a stranger shooting up in your yard, my response would be no different than if he were in the street. Accept that I would first try to inform you that he was there to gain cooperation with you in resolving the nuisance.
(16)Congratulations! You just might make a good Libertarian citizen in spite of your pathology!
(17)Disappointing and insulting that you would couple Libertarian with the ACLU. But then, I have no reason to expect otherwise!
I hope you get your pearls wholesale, at least the ones you cast before swine.
Always at a discount, wholesale when I can. I hate taxation without representation.
Think about it.
The political spectrum so clearly ranges from Libertarian to Authoritarian rather than Left to Right as we have been conditioned to believe, you will never make contact with blindfolded neo-cons.
It is really frightening that the system is so rigged that we root for one side or another as we freely elect our slavemasters. As long as there are people who believe like Dane, we are going to get to tyranny one way or the other, and it will be of very little consolation if it comes from the "Right".
I, for one, have been enjoying life and working for a living the whole time we have been playing patty-cake. You are scarcely a full time job.
I think I am going to go into a diabetic coma over your sugarsweet review. Sheesh your above itlaicized "review" reads like a New York Times review of the Clintons.
You and Scottiewottie can continue your mutual admiration society meeting.
Self-importance?
Exactly!
I agree that it is rather sad that we have to dedicate the sacred right to vote to a short list of two abusive and corrupt powerbases. The only gratitude is that they still fight for power to stuff the other out of the feeding trough.
I do get rather weary that my vote is one that does not really change the system, but that my vote is more a weapon of causing injury to the party that could cause the most harm.
Not really a manly projection, but then if you saw and knew me, you would conclude that I don't need one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.