| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrsocko
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2453
  
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
FL said
| Quote: | | what you are saying is you can do whatever you want and if later you think its bs then you shouldnt be punished? |
Most of us don't do whatever we want. Those who do usually get caught. There are some times that we break the law and go unpunished. Trying pot could get you in trouble. But even a judge on a first offense would probably give an absolute or conditional discharge to someone caught with a small amount of pot.
Seems you are giving us two choices. Put everyone in jail or put no one in jail. Either would be a distaster of a society. |
|
|
|
 |
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrsocko wrote: | FL said
| Quote: | | what you are saying is you can do whatever you want and if later you think its bs then you shouldnt be punished? |
Most of us don't do whatever we want. Those who do usually get caught. There are some times that we break the law and go unpunished. Trying pot could get you in trouble. But even a judge on a first offense would probably give an absolute or conditional discharge to someone caught with a small amount of pot.
Seems you are giving us two choices. Put everyone in jail or put no one in jail. Either would be a distaster of a society. |
It is as if he is saying that if you have ever done something wrong you can never oppose it unless you first turn yourself in for it. It is really silly that someone would hold that position and frankly blows my mind that someone would call someone an "ass" over it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What keeps coming up in several posters arguments is a classical fallacy called false dilemma, or false dichotomy. Basically you either have to be for imprisoning someone for smoking pot under all circumstances, or against it under any circumstance and there is no middle ground. Anyone, like me, like Craig, or like the United States government, who takes a conditional and rational approach to this issue is labeled out of touch and an ass. :roll: I guess that is the best I can expect from these liberals? |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | gc wrote: | | Depends, do you think kids should be punished for shoplifting? If you do, that would make you a hypocrite. |
No it wouldn't. A hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs or feelings. I would be a hypocrite if I said I opposed shoplifting and then went and did it. I would NOT be a hypocrite if I shoplifted 20 years ago and today stated that I opposed it.
You are fighting an unwinnable battle. You have the english language against you. |
Perhaps you have a better word to describe someone who thinks that other people should go to jail for doing the same thing that he did himself? |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | Craig wrote: | | gc wrote: | | Depends, do you think kids should be punished for shoplifting? If you do, that would make you a hypocrite. |
No it wouldn't. A hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs or feelings. I would be a hypocrite if I said I opposed shoplifting and then went and did it. I would NOT be a hypocrite if I shoplifted 20 years ago and today stated that I opposed it.
You are fighting an unwinnable battle. You have the english language against you. |
Perhaps you have a better word to describe someone who thinks that other people should go to jail for doing the same thing that he did himself? |
:roll:
You don't listen. There is no point.
It is an absolutely absurd argument to suggest that if someone did something wrong in the past they are not allowed to oppose it in the future unless they first turn themselves into police. Absolutely absurd. I'll let readers make their own judgement. I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: |
It is an absolutely absurd argument to suggest that if someone did something wrong in the past they are not allowed to oppose it in the future unless they first turn themselves into police. |
There is nothing wrong with opposing something that a person did in their past. The problem is when they say "you deserve to go to jail for doing 'X', whereas I do not deserve to go to jail for doing 'X'" |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | There is nothing wrong with opposing something that a person did in their past. The problem is when they say "you deserve to go to jail for doing 'X', whereas I do not deserve to go to jail for doing 'X'" |
If he had been caught then I'm sure he would agree that jail would have been appropriate. You are suggesting that he can't oppose drugs until he turns himself in and serves time. THAT is what is absurd. And the fact that you keep on harping on about this is really childish. Let the guy oppose drugs for crying out loud - the basis for your opposition is silly. |
|
|
|
|
mrsocko
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2453
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
truth4freedom wrote:
| Quote: | | I guess that is the best I can expect from these liberals? |
Nice Shot!
Some of the responses on this thread do sort of remind me of responses I heard from Libs and Dippers on Mike Duffy Live! |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| truth4freedom wrote: | | Basically you either have to be for imprisoning someone for smoking pot under all circumstances, or against it under any circumstance and there is no middle ground. |
Who do you think should be imprisoned for smoking pot, and who do you think should not be imprisoned for smoking pot? |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | You are suggesting that he can't oppose drugs until he turns himself in and serves time. |
Since this is the same argument that you made in a previous post , I'll direct you to my reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He is a hypocrite because he wants to impose standards on others that he’s not willing to impose on himself.
He is the one seeing things in black and white.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to legalizaing and decrim.
He thinks agressively aresting people is the way to go.
I am sure thats why citizens smoke weed x3 as much in the us than the netherlands.
But he refuses to answer my ?
so Ill ask it once more
Would you and society been better off if you had just now been released from jail (with a criminal record so you couldnt get a job).
Because I dont think he is saying he should have gone to jail and things owuld have been better if he had for himself and for society. I dont get that at all.
You may see nothing odd about a murder opposing murder.....
To me someone like thats oppinions are not that important, why are we listening to a murders view about murder.
They got away with it, others shouldnt...... |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | Craig wrote: | | You are suggesting that he can't oppose drugs until he turns himself in and serves time. |
Since this is the same argument that you made in a previous post , I'll direct you to my reply. |
"The problem is when they say "you deserve to go to jail for doing 'X', whereas I do not deserve to go to jail for doing 'X'""
So I'll address it AGAIN. That is NOT what he is saying. This is what he is saying...
"you deserve to go to jail for doing 'X', whereas I do not deserve to go to jail for doing 'X' TEN YEARS AGO
THAT is why your comparison is valid. If truth4freedom went out on the street corner and did drugs with someone else and they both got caught I'm sure he supports the concept that they should BOTH go to jail. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing what he did 10 years ago to what happens today. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | | He is a hypocrite because he wants to impose standards on others that he’s not willing to impose on himself. |
No I am not. If I went out, rolled up a few spliffs, and smoked them tomorrow and was busted in the process, I would fully support my prosecution to the full extent of the law.
I do not however, believe as Craig has said, that I should be prosecuted under a statute of limitations for something I participated in over 10 years ago.
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | | He is the one seeing things in black and white. |
No I am not. Example?
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | | I am sure thats why citizens smoke weed x3 as much in the us than the netherlands. |
They can't afford it in the Netherlands because of their socialist society. :roll:
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | Would you and society been better off if you had just now been released from jail (with a criminal record so you couldnt get a job).
Because I dont think he is saying he should have gone to jail and things owuld have been better if he had for himself and for society. I dont get that at all. |
Liberals never 'get' the cause and effect of evil. I would have been better off, and society as well if I had been tossed in jail over a decade ago. There would have been plenty of people who I would not have affected in such a negative manner, and I would have had time to think about my poor decisions.
| FascistLibertarian wrote: | You may see nothing odd about a murder opposing murder.....
To me someone like thats oppinions are not that important, why are we listening to a murders view about murder.
They got away with it, others shouldnt...... |
Comparing smoking pot to murder! :lol: Great argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | truth4freedom wrote: | | Basically you either have to be for imprisoning someone for smoking pot under all circumstances, or against it under any circumstance and there is no middle ground. |
Who do you think should be imprisoned for smoking pot, and who do you think should not be imprisoned for smoking pot? |
A weekend smoker with a joint on them at the time of arrest should be charged with a misdemeanor. Those who possess or sell a large quantities should be charged with a felony and and serve jail or prison time. |
|
|
|
|
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | A weekend smoker with a joint on them at the time of arrest should be charged with a misdemeanor. Those who possess or sell a large quantities should be charged with a felony and and serve jail or prison time. |
If you refer to my last post, you'll see that this is roughly how it works in Canada. For future reference, summary conviction = misdemeanor, and indicatable offense = felony. We also have offense where the prosecution can elect to either summary conviction or indictable, and these are called hybrid or dual-procedure offenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
