|
baquerd posted:If you make your own straight from the plants though, absolutely nothing. Of course there's something wrong with selling your own cocaine; just look at what it does to/for the customer and society. If you're selling to street gangs and whatnot, then you have all the problems you just listed. That's with out mentioning the direct and collateral effects of addiction. On top of that, there's the general fact that parents don't want their children coming near such a questionable substance and environment, that society and the legislature have both taken a very dim view of narcotics, etc. I also sincerely doubt that the particular poster in this thread harvested his own cocaine, but whatever.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Of course there's something wrong with selling your own cocaine; just look at what it does to/for the customer and society. If you're selling to street gangs and whatnot, then you have all the problems you just listed. That's with out mentioning the direct and collateral effects of addiction. You presume the seller and/or the buyer are irresponsible, why? Do we not have functioning coke addicts throughout entertainment, business, and dare I say politics? We allow legal tobacco addiction, why not legal cocaine addiction? If we allow mass production and importation, any bum on the street could afford it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
Yes, of all the threads this is the thread to promote the war on drugs as having positive outcomes yessssss
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Because it's illegal, That's begging the question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 15:42
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:That's begging the question. No it really isn't, I listed a cause that is a legal fact and an effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Because it's illegal, the typical channels of supply are filled with violence, the manufacturers see a tiny percentage of the immense profits when they aren't effectively slaves, and the proceeds work their way back to fund the cycle over again, save for those kickbacks that go to law enforcement through seizures and the like. If it weren't illegal it wouldn't have these problems, so the issue is with the law then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:If it weren't illegal it wouldn't have these problems, so the issue is with the law then. That was what I was getting at, I can see the confusion on re-reading now though, thanks for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:Yes, of all the threads this is the thread to promote the war on drugs as having positive outcomes yessssss I think its a law of nature. "All cop and prison threads, as time goes on, have the probability of agreeing with the Drug War approach 1."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I think its a law of nature. "All cop and prison threads, as time goes on, have the probability of agreeing with the Drug War approach 1." They're pretty much tied together at this point. How much of prison and police funding is due to the war on drugs? I'd think it's gotta be at least half.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
aejix posted:Thanks for posting The Valuum! Once I finish probation I'll be fine, I'll be off probation before I'm done with college, so getting a job shouldn't be too hard Stew Man Chew posted:I would be curious about how often this prevails in certain jails/prisons. Do guards have perspective on the fact that the vast majority of people are incarcerated for drug-related offenses that are essentially victimless? No, most think "THE CHILDREN!" or some stupid bullshit. The best opinion you're gonna get is an apathetic one Shang Yang posted:You don't think being a cocaine dealer, or breaking a law against dealing controlled substances, is wrong? That seems a little odd. Are you saying you didn't sell, and accidentally had a fair amount of coke and weed on you, or you're just disappointed that they were able to convict you despite not literally nicking you during a sale? If it's the latter, then it sounds like you're playing the victim, although I guess that's par for the course when it comes to defendants. Breaking the law does not equal bad morales. I was a dealer, but made the VAST majority of my money with weed. On weekends I would pick up a good amount of coke. I never sold to someone who never did it, never gave it away. Basically I would have a party or go to one, and sell tons of $20 bags. I wasn't destroying society, they were just kids drinking that wanted to have a good time. No one ever bought a big amount off me even. I never did anything sinister, especially considering how much damage the entire criminal case did to my life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Of course there's something wrong with selling your own cocaine; just look at what it does to/for the customer and society. If you're selling to street gangs and whatnot, then you have all the problems you just listed. That's with out mentioning the direct and collateral effects of addiction. No, society has taken a dim view of narcotics that are associated with minority use. Of course, if you're taking Zolpidem, Vicodin, Oxycotton, or anything else in a little brown bottle you're probably white and of course THOSE drugs are ok, even if they're widely abused recreationally. Its also not up to the government what the "Customer" does to himself. I'm allowed to go on any array of dangerous activities, why I could go jump out of an airplane right now, or climb up a sheer rock face with no rope, or do a backflip off my roof. So who are you or the federal government to tell anyone what they can put into their body? You know what, how about this, you get to insist drugs to be illegal, and I get to choose 3 food groups that you are never allowed to touch again, because I have a negative opinion of them and feel it should be forced on you. Fair enough?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:You know what, how about this, you get to insist drugs to be illegal, and I get to choose 3 food groups that you are never allowed to touch again, because I have a negative opinion of them and feel it should be forced on you. Fair enough? My inner hand wringing schadenfreude gremlin would love to see the "No junk food with EBT!" people have it out with the "legalize drugs!" crowd. Then again, I'm someone who wants to have it both ways in that I'd honestly support both positions. Now that I've seen it put this way, though, the only truly consistent option would be to support freedom of, well, whatever you want to eat drink or smoke. This is probably a derail but if we legalized and taxed drugs we'd make way more money than we'd save by rationing bacon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
The Valuum posted:Breaking the law does not equal bad morales. I was a dealer, but made the VAST majority of my money with weed. On weekends I would pick up a good amount of coke. I never sold to someone who never did it, never gave it away. Basically I would have a party or go to one, and sell tons of $20 bags. I wasn't destroying society, they were just kids drinking that wanted to have a good time. No one ever bought a big amount off me even. You aren't the one who decides the goals of society and how society is to be regulated, and I sincerely doubt that you checked up on the kids who bought the "tons of $20 bags" you sold. From your own mouth, you picked up a "good" amount of cocaine and sold tonnes of bags; you were a coke dealer, and you opposed the wishes of millions of families and the government they elect. Breaking the law is not per se a moral wrong, but it can be; it is wrong to not know your place, and it is wrong to impede the excellence of the citizenry. You weren't the victim of some gross injustice when law enforcement stopped you; what you did was against the express will of society, and directly affected the lives of families far more important than yourself. Mothers and fathers work and support much of the world you live in, and they have evidently decided against seeing their childrens' lives and money wasted on narcotics. The governing classes and voters have determined that narcotics aren't conducive to the excellence of this country's citizenry. You are nothing compared to that; if you think you can just ignore the determinations of such people and do as you like, then please save your tears when the prosecutor rejects your own determinations and sees you put away in the clink. In your posts, apparently the only injustice that occurred was you getting caught and having your life affected. That is, you, the college kid who apparently won't have a problem getting a job. You may be a nice person who lives well now, but if that's the case then don't pretend like you were some innocent coke dealer who was the real victim of this mess. You are not some fully-autonomous being that is unjustly wounded when he can't run rampant. Spaceman Future! posted:No, society has taken a dim view of narcotics that are associated with minority use. Of course, if you're taking Zolpidem, Vicodin, Oxycotton, or anything else in a little brown bottle you're probably white and of course THOSE drugs are ok, even if they're widely abused recreationally. I wasn't aware that cocaine was only for minorities, and at any rate this has little to do with my post. He is selling coke in violation of the law and against the adjudged excellence of the citizenry. I don't know all the drugs you listed, but prescription medicine is also regulated by laws; whether they have lesser of greater punishments is a separate issue. quote:Its also not up to the government what the "Customer" does to himself. I'm allowed to go on any array of dangerous activities, why I could go jump out of an airplane right now, or climb up a sheer rock face with no rope, or do a backflip off my roof. So who are you or the federal government to tell anyone what they can put into their body? As it stands, your personal opinion of the government's role has been rejected. Both commoners and the upper class of judges and prosecutors have concluded that the the government may regulate what you put in your body. Your suggested deal is meaningless, because you are talking outside your station. We are not equal parties here; your position has been rejected, and I doubt you have any special authority or experience when it comes to drug or food regulation. You are not an island, and you will be regulated by men of quality; do not pretend that you can somehow do whatever you want to the people and institutions around you. Shang Yang fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Words
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:As it stands, your personal opinion of the government's role has been rejected. Both commoners and the upper class of judges and prosecutors have concluded that the the government may regulate what you put in your body. Your suggested deal is meaningless, because you are talking outside your station. We are not equal parties here; your position has been rejected, and I doubt you have any special authority or experience when it comes to drug or food regulation. You are not an island, and you will be regulated by men of quality; do not pretend that you can somehow do whatever you want to the people and institutions around you. Ah yes, the "Government says Government should have this power" defense. Why, yes, people with power would want to increase their power! How you think this is actually a justification for anything is beyond me. Oh yes, and you're the first person since 1890 to tell anyone not to talk above their station, there's a reason for this. Social Darwinism is dead, rich people aren't better than me biologically or mentally, we are in fact the same race, Im not obligated to bow to them or hail them as superior. Please present an example of a "Man of Quality". Also, define "Man of Quality".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Ah yes, the "Government says Government should have this power" defense. Why, yes, people with power would want to increase their power! How you think this is actually a justification for anything is beyond me. No, that's a thorough misrepresentation of everything i posted. I never said that rich people were better than you. Wealth is a strictly low class concern, and I have no idea why you think the rich are superior. It's entirely likely that there are many people better than you, but it's not because they have a lot of money. That's an idea that is entirely your own, and you simply inserted it into my post where it doesn't belong. I actually gave an example of those men of quality in my post. They are the "upper class of judges and prosecutors," those learned gentlemen that reside in our ornate courthouses and state buildings. I did not refer to those men of quality in an effort to convince you of your lowly stature; for all I know you might be a judge or prosecutor, or you might be in some other profession that deals intimately with justice and is regulated against low class corruption. My point was rather to show how unsustainable, untrue, and childish some of the views being espoused here are. You lot are literally trying to say that there's nothing wrong with being a cocaine dealer, as though you were some kind of magical, autonomous being that didn't have to consider others. Your viewpoint is wrong and dangerous on a number of levels, and you have no equal footing to make childish deals about banning foodstuffs you don't like. You're trying to tell a democratic government and millions of families that, oh, their attempt to regulate or bar the detrimental trade of cocaine in their society is somehow equivelant to your individual, unsupported temper-tantrum about banning certain foods. Demanding definitions and the like is just the cream on top; you haven't given any detailed reasoning of your own, despite being the one yearning for change. People who outrank you in quantity, and in quality, have decided the matter against you; whether a person is an aristocrat or a democrat that should mean something. Simply saying "hurrgh it's government giving government power" is unhelpful, because it seems the bulk of families that don't work in government at all are happy to see drugs regulated. It also involves questions of how society is to be managed with a view to excellence, and the opinion that people are wholly autonomous actors who are unjustly infringed upon when the law touches them is ridiculous. Shang Yang fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Nov 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 06:44
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:No, that's a thorough misrepresentation of everything i posted. The people whom you claim to outrank him in quality are in reality they are sentencing him potentially to years of rape and violence and then, after his debt to society is supposed to have been paid, to a lifetime of unemployability, to support a system that has virtually no effect in reducing the availability of controlled substances. Either they are unaware of this fact or they approve of it, which speaks eloquently as to their "quality." Or, to put it another way, the law is an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 06:55
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:No, that's a thorough misrepresentation of everything i posted. Citing support for the war on drugs as a barometer of personal quality isn't exactly a compelling argument, given the insane amount of harm the philosophy has caused. Yeah, the people who deal in cocaine have a level of moral complicity given the abysmal situation surrounding its trafficking, but is it any more serious than supporting the positions that directly CAUSE the situation? Maybe so, but only if support for such positions is grounded in ignorance of the suffering caused (which is NOT a criteria for personal quality). The drug war and its associated laws arise from a dialectical relationship between a propagandized populace and cynically exploitive political-economic forces, not some high minded effort at maintaining excellent social management.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
I for one, sir, can assure you that I am a man of quality, and if you should doubt me, I would kindly ask you to direct your enquires on the matter in a despatch to Messrs. P—— & N——, as they will readily vouch for my good standing. As such, I would implore you consider that the fine laws of this land are set forth not by Providence nor by the inerrant will of the body politic—nor indeed even by the unmottled virtue of those entrusted to see to the furtherance of the general welfare; nay, at times the laws reflect motives and sentiments akin to the spokes of the wheels on a carriage rattled too oft by traversal across dilapidated roads: being deformed to varying degrees, but never wholly true, though one might not gather was much barring close inspection so long as said spokes remain at least unbroken, carrying out their function though perhaps increasing the onus on beleaguered animals who know nothing of circumferences nor why their burden should feel greater without additional weight. When a man complains that the he is unfairly slowed by the wobble of the wheel of his destiny, I urge you, do not be so quick to assume he curses all wheelwrights, but do not assume all wheelwrights are immaculate in their works by the some token.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:The people whom you claim to outrank him in quality are in reality they are sentencing him potentially to years of rape and violence and then, after his debt to society is supposed to have been paid, to a lifetime of unemployability, to support a system that has virtually no effect in reducing the availability of controlled substances. Either they are unaware of this fact or they approve of it, which speaks eloquently as to their "quality." Many of those things have little to do with the judge and prosecutor, especially given the modern mistreatment of their noble offices. You mention the "potentiality" and don't discuss the criminal’s role in any of it; whether the actual punishment itself reduces the availability of drugs or not is also hardly the sole factor to consider. Even if you those who are in a position to judge do conclude that they're not doing the best job, it still needs to be discussed as to whether that is the fault of those learned gentlemen, or the structure of society that glorifies wealth and does not grant nobility the power and stature it deserves. The excellence of the citizenry has already been noted, but given the respect and attention mere economic concerns are given, along with the sad state of many support programmes, the judges and prosecutors may well be doing what they can in degenerate times. They are of a superior quality because they are moral giants who deal with the most weighty concerns imaginable. Courts determine what is and what ought to be, they divine the true meaning of the various laws and constitutions, and as a class of nobles they preside over the citizenry while keeping an eye to the good. The commons generally know little of the daily rigours of law. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:The drug war and its associated laws arise from a dialectical relationship between a propagandized populace and cynically exploitive political-economic forces, not some high minded effort at maintaining excellent social management. Yet it is neither the propagandized populace or the cynically exploitive political-economic forces that interpret and apply those laws. You do emphasise the point I hope to make that judges and prosecutors are not given their due grant of authority and respect. Where the superior are placed on the same level, or even beneath, the inferior, I do not expect things to go smoothly. I do not tell a cobbler how to fix my shoes, and I don't expect him to discuss whether charges ought to have been brought in a certain case, or whether a sentence was too harsh or too lenient. Specific classes have their appropriate concerns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Many of those things have little to do with the judge and prosecutor, especially given the modern mistreatment of their noble offices. You mention the "potentiality" and don't discuss the criminal’s role in any of it; whether the actual punishment itself reduces the availability of drugs or not is also hardly the sole factor to consider. I would submit that anyone who is incapable of doing his job because he is not given the respect he believes is due, is in fact not worthy of judging weighty concerns at all. Arguing that he must be of superior moral quality because his position would be unfair otherwise is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Yet it is neither the propagandized populace or the cynically exploitive political-economic forces that interpret and apply those laws. You do emphasise the point I hope to make that judges and prosecutors are not given their due grant of authority and respect. Where the superior are placed on the same level, or even beneath, the inferior, I do not expect things to go smoothly. I do not tell a cobbler how to fix my shoes, and I don't expect him to discuss whether charges ought to have been brought in a certain case, or whether a sentence was too harsh or too lenient. Specific classes have their appropriate concerns. Shoe Cobblers and men of quality. You've managed to inflate your perceived sense of intelligence, but you've done it for the wrong century. At the same time your argument is a couple hundred years out of date, so I guess you've managed to make it all line up. Though, for the sake of everyone else, I would kindly ask you to join the last person who made a reference to a shoe cobbler in being dead for the last 100 years, it would be greatly beneficial to discourse in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 08:49
|
|
|
I do believe that 'Shang Yang' is a fairly unsubtle (though effective) gimmick poster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 08:51
|
|
|
lonelywurm posted:I do believe that 'Shang Yang' is a fairly unsubtle (though effective) gimmick poster. Come on man, can you keep it out of the good threads?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 08:59
|
|
|
lonelywurm posted:I do believe that 'Shang Yang' is a fairly unsubtle (though effective) gimmick poster. I know but its late and those posts are low hanging fruit. After all, he puts so much effort into the gimmick it would be rude not to at least acknowledge the effort. I don't think I could pull quite as much useless anachronistic English out of my hat on short notice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 09:02
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Where the superior are placed on the same level, or even beneath, the inferior, I do not expect things to go smoothly. I do not tell a cobbler how to fix my shoes, and I don't expect him to discuss whether charges ought to have been brought in a certain case, or whether a sentence was too harsh or too lenient. Specific classes have their appropriate concerns.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
Who is the guy whose gimmick is Spartan gerontocracy? Is that another grumblefish alt.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
FedkaTheConvict posted:Who is the guy whose gimmick is Spartan gerontocracy? Is that another grumblefish alt. Yeah, it's Lykourgos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Many of those things have little to do with the judge and prosecutor, especially given the modern mistreatment of their noble offices. You mention the "potentiality" and don't discuss the criminal’s role in any of it; whether the actual punishment itself reduces the availability of drugs or not is also hardly the sole factor to consider. The judge and a prosecutor do not write the laws or runn the prison system. In fact, if you actually read the thread, you would have learned that the one time a judge has actually tried to take control of the prison system, in order to stop it from killing convicts through faulty medical care, he was resisted at every turn and his orders gone unfilled. Shang Yang posted:They are of a superior quality because they are moral giants who deal with the most weighty concerns imaginable. Courts determine what is and what ought to be, they divine the true meaning of the various laws and constitutions, and as a class of nobles they preside over the citizenry while keeping an eye to the good. A convicted felon knows more about the rigors or law than you do, particularly Hidingfromgoro. And there's no magic about the court system. Much of a judge's work is simply that of a high ranking bureaucrat (and very often, a successful career in the DA's office is a stepping stone to becoming a judge, particularly in jurisdictions where judges are elected, which itself raises issues of stacking the deck against criminals).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:The judge and a prosecutor do not write the laws or runn the prison system. In fact, if you actually read the thread, you would have learned that the one time a judge has actually tried to take control of the prison system, in order to stop it from killing convicts through faulty medical care, he was resisted at every turn and his orders gone unfilled. Traditionally corrections employees benefit from something called 'qualified immunity' which bars lawsuit liability if the employee thinks that he/she is operating within the bounds of the law. Additionally, most states indemnify (pay for) lawsuits against corrections employees where the lawsuit is not 'willful.' If a prison system just ignores judicial orders, the people in the system ignoring the orders become personally liable for lawsuits (and willful suits usually allow punitive damages). So yes, Judge's actually do have a lot of power to reform prison conditions. They just choose not to exercise it. Hobologist posted:And there's no magic about the court system. Much of a judge's work is simply that of a high ranking bureaucrat (and very often, a successful career in the DA's office is a stepping stone to becoming a judge, particularly in jurisdictions where judges are elected, which itself raises issues of stacking the deck against criminals). A single activist judge actually has the potential to make a fairly serious difference on any issue, again they just choose not to. Everything you said about DAs is spot on though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:This is not my experience. Judge's have mandated serious change more than 'one time.' I wasn't talking about what judges can do, I was talking about what they have done. If the current system is what we have after judicially-led reform, you can understand my skepticism about its effectiveness. JudicialRestraints posted:This is actually fairly wrong. Judge's have an amazing amount of discretion, especially at the federal level where you are functionally immune to being fired. While your decisions can get overturned, most appellate bodies do not have the time to overturn all of your decisions. By far the majority of prosecutions are for state, not federal, crimes, and more to the point, most prisoners are by far state, not federal, prisoners. In fact, that was the context I was addressing Shang Yang in. Any real reforms would probably have to come from the federal judiciary, but the Prison Litigation Reform Act has thrown up roadblocks even in that area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I would submit that anyone who is incapable of doing his job because he is not given the respect he believes is due, is in fact not worthy of judging weighty concerns at all. Arguing that he must be of superior moral quality because his position would be unfair otherwise is just stupid. Great, only that's not what I said. If it was simply a matter of respect alone, I'm sure they could earn it. But as I stated in my post, the purity and authority of the upper class is under siege from all directions. They are often appointed or elected by rank outsiders, they don't have the numbers or budget to perform all the functions of an aristocracy, they don't have a personal armed forces, etc. Even if we did agree that these moral giants are dropping the ball, the fact remains that the blame often belongs outside the upper classes; whether it's people like Kagan being exalted, or the commons voting out their justices. Spaceman Future! posted:I would kindly ask you to join the last person who made a reference to a shoe cobbler in being dead for the last 100 years, it would be greatly beneficial to discourse in general. Actually, series 3 episode 1 of Yes Minister had a reference to cobblers, thank you very much. And it's not beneficial to the discourse to ignore legitimate criticism. lonelywurm posted:I do believe that 'Shang Yang' is a fairly unsubtle (though effective) gimmick poster. Good catch on the name, but actually my position in this thread has little to do with his views and I'm not a gimmick. It's not a gimmick to disagree, and when random posters go "hurgh you're too old fashioned," etc, rather than engage the topic, it is unfortunate. Hobologist posted:The judge and a prosecutor do not write the laws or runn the prison system. In fact, if you actually read the thread, you would have learned that the one time a judge has actually tried to take control of the prison system, in order to stop it from killing convicts through faulty medical care, he was resisted at every turn and his orders gone unfilled. What you've posted only supports my point, so thanks. "In fact, if you actually read the thread," you would have realised that. I've always maintained that it's a failure to deny judges and prosecutors the authority, resources, numbers, and purity to write the laws and run the corrections department. It is to deny their natural right and office, and it impedes the excellence of the citizenry. It's also a disservice to pretend that those who have been adjudged guilty of sin are the victims, or on some equal footing. quote:A convicted felon knows more about the rigors or law than you do, particularly Hidingfromgoro. As far as I know Goro has no right of audience, and doesn't prosecute or judge people. So no, I can't conclude he knows a lot about the rigours of law compared to the class of people who live it every day. I don't doubt his interest in the prisons, though, and he evidently puts a lot of work into that. On the other hand, he also seems willing to rely on shabby journo articles in order to take a couple of low-blows at prosecutors or whoever else he may dislike. Then everybody quotes him or the article like it's the gospel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Good catch on the name, but actually my position in this thread has little to do with his views and I'm not a gimmick. Shang Yang's specific position, like Dracon's, would be capital punishment for The Valuum, so in that respect, your position is not like his views. (a weakness on your part, perhaps) On the other hand, Shang Yang was all for using the law as a blind, universal bludgeon to perpetuate the State, divorced from any ideas of Justice. That is where your positions are the same, and probably why you picked the name. Shang Yang posted:It's not a gimmick to disagree, and when random posters go "hurgh you're too old fashioned," etc, rather than engage the topic, it is unfortunate. The problem with your schtick is that it stinks up the discussion. You use your Bizarro Plato/Aristotle gimmick (I'm waiting for Bizzaro T'ien Ming) like chaff to distract the discussion and derail it at its beginning. You can then claim that people are attacking you and your gimmick and not your ideas and thus convince yourself that you are the honourable victor, doing honourable things. Maybe there could have been a useful discussion about The Valuum's social/moral brokenness and why it is not cured because the war on drugs (which is very much in line with Bizarro Plato/Aristotle / Chinese Legalists) is a bad idea. But instead we have suffer through your Dadaist take on week two of Intro to Philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 01:47
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Shang Yang's specific position, like Dracon's, would be capital punishment for The Valuum, so in that respect, your position is not like his views. (a weakness on your part, perhaps) On the other hand, Shang Yang was all for using the law as a blind, universal bludgeon to perpetuate the State, divorced from any ideas of Justice. That is where your positions are the same, and probably why you picked the name. A difference between myself and Shang Yang that is more important and obvious is that I talk about morality and how closely it relates to the upper class. There are plenty of moments in the ShangJunShu where that is expressly rejected in language well-suited to this thread. For example, guo wei shan jian bi duo, which I'll paraphrase as when officials concern themselves with virtue, there will be many criminals. I am not like Shang Yang and this isn't a gimmick account; I actually chose this name for a different, benign reason that requires a little work to be done before it can come in handy. On the other hand, it's good to hear that you've studied Shang Yang. quote:The problem with your schtick is that it stinks up the discussion. You use your Bizarro Plato/Aristotle gimmick (I'm waiting for Bizzaro T'ien Ming) like chaff to distract the discussion and derail it at its beginning. You can then claim that people are attacking you and your gimmick and not your ideas and thus convince yourself that you are the honourable victor, doing honourable things. No, the problem isn't that I have some schtick, but that some bad apples seem to be enthralled by their opinion and don't want to lay foundation or tolerate certain objections. I don't derail things so much as I criticise or request an explanation for those things I find distasteful and wrong. In a lot of threads, though, it's as though we're supposed to assume that something like equality is simply per se an ideal goal, and if you don't agree then you can't participate without people calling you a gimmick or a troll. For whatever reason, some posters seem to think that their view is some unquestionable default that requires no foundation or objective reasoning, and that therefore they may talk largely unopposed about right and wrong and what ought to be, despite no apparent foundation, experience, or specialised knowledge at all. I have never taken an intro to philosophy class, so I have no idea what week two would consist of. I have no idea what dada is, and it's besides the point. All you've got are collateral complaints that don't speak to the topic. You can't have a serious discussion on this topic without proper consideration of philosophy. I keep myself on topic, and only digress in order to explain my point; see if you can't do the same. Shang Yang fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:I wasn't talking about what judges can do, I was talking about what they have done. If the current system is what we have after judicially-led reform, you can understand my skepticism about its effectiveness. Judges CHOOSE not to go farther, but if you think about the changes we have seen, they are pretty major (although not far enough of course). Hobologist posted:By far the majority of prosecutions are for state, not federal, crimes, and more to the point, most prisoners are by far state, not federal, prisoners. In fact, that was the context I was addressing Shang Yang in. Any real reforms would probably have to come from the federal judiciary, but the Prison Litigation Reform Act has thrown up roadblocks even in that area. In other words if you don't file a frivolous claims, you won't have to worry about the PLRA. Even if you 'strike out' all you have to do is pay the federal filing fee (which is beyond the reach of many but not all prisoners). If something serious happens to you, you can probably get a lawyer to take your case on retainer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:I have never taken an intro to philosophy class, so I have no idea what week two would consist of. I have no idea what dada is, and it's besides the point. All you've got are collateral complaints that don't speak to the topic. You can't have a serious discussion on this topic without proper consideration of philosophy. I keep myself on topic, and only digress in order to explain my point; see if you can't do the same. You are incapable of looking at issues outside of a vacuum, you ignore all evidence pointing to why your views on drugs are wrong, you have no empathy for the brutalities the victims of your viewpoint are subject to, and you use absolutely broken logic in your own views. You're not like most regressives who start with an incorrect foundation and then at least build valid arguments on top of it (which are of course immediately invalidated thanks to the invalid premise), you start with an invalid premise and then you pile on still more invalid arguments. In your world, we're a 50.1% popular vote away from mandating the killing of the other 49.9% of the nation; what the law says is the law and that's that since All The People Have Spoken! Example: Shang Yang posted:As it stands, your personal opinion of the government's role has been rejected. Both commoners and the upper class of judges and prosecutors have concluded that the the government may regulate what you put in your body. Your suggested deal is meaningless, because you are talking outside your station. We are not equal parties here; your position has been rejected, and I doubt you have any special authority or experience when it comes to drug or food regulation. You are not an island, and you will be regulated by men of quality; do not pretend that you can somehow do whatever you want to the people and institutions around you. You have made no valid arguments, then you continue to say others are ignoring your points when you are only providing false or otherwise proven-wrong premises for discussion. Contrary to what you want to believe, Shang, popular decisions are not always accurate or correct, despite having been made. For example, creatures similar to yourself have outlawed gay marriage. While I don't want you to spew still more diarrhea onto my beloved forum for jerks, I will muse that your opinion on that subject would likely rile me as the rest of your terrible posts have. You are a poor observer and commentator on the state of social situations for the reasons above (and likely others that I've not picked up on). No one can have a serious discussion with you because you're the worst parts of a petulant child and a demagogue combined. No matter how much you will reality to change, Shang Yang, it will not. You can call a spade an enema, but at the end of the day you're still just shoving a spade up your rear end. Claim you're not a gimmick all you want but you sure do spew bullshit and spawn ire like the troll you clearly are: Shang Yang posted:[Judges and prosecutors] are of a superior quality because they are moral giants who deal with the most weighty concerns imaginable. Courts determine what is and what ought to be, they divine the true meaning of the various laws and constitutions, and as a class of nobles they preside over the citizenry while keeping an eye to the good. Go troll somewhere else, because for someone to seriously believe what you're saying, and to have millions of people believe it, would mean that hundreds millions more would suffer and, hopefully, eventually, rise up violently to destroy the blight on humanity that is you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:What you've posted only supports my point, so thanks. "In fact, if you actually read the thread," you would have realised that. I've always maintained that it's a failure to deny judges and prosecutors the authority, resources, numbers, and purity to write the laws and run the corrections department. It is to deny their natural right and office, and it impedes the excellence of the citizenry. It's also a disservice to pretend that those who have been adjudged guilty of sin are the victims, or on some equal footing. The "natural right" of the judge's office is to judge, not to administrate or legislate. The prosecutor's natural right is merely to advocate in favor of punishment, not to administrate or legislate. What either of these facts has to do with the excellence of the citizenry, or purity, is beyond me, because you haven't articulated anything clear about those matters. Shang Yang posted:As far as I know Goro has no right of audience, and doesn't prosecute or judge people. So no, I can't conclude he knows a lot about the rigours of law compared to the class of people who live it every day. I don't doubt his interest in the prisons, though, and he evidently puts a lot of work into that. On the other hand, he also seems willing to rely on shabby journo articles in order to take a couple of low-blows at prosecutors or whoever else he may dislike. Then everybody quotes him or the article like it's the gospel. Better than relying on nebulous concepts of purity and excellence to say that a broken system is working fine. JudicialRestraints posted:Judges have mandated many things such as medical treatment in certain situations, due process hearings for loss of good time, access to legal libraries, and a system where prisoners can sue their prison guards. True, but issuing orders and enumerating rights, although welcome, is not the same as taking control. Actual receivership has only been used once, I believe, and the state is naturally still opposing it after many years of its being in effect (another appeal denied last May). I also don't think that the Constitutional minimums under the 8th amendment go far enough, but that is another matter. JudicialRestraints posted:Federal Judges have jurisdiction over all prisons regarding constitutional rights (prison condition). The PLRA actually isn't that terrible. You get 3 dismissals without having to pay. To be dismissed you have to have a pretty spurious claim. My concern is more on the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement. Plenty of opportunities for the state administration to "lose" paperwork, delay proceedings, and, of course, it is an invitation of reprisal from prison staff. Goro would know more about whether this is a severe problem, but the potential for abuse is there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:
On the one hand, less overcrowding is good. On the other hand, CCA. I'm not sure which will be worse for the inmates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 18:55
|
|