[quote]UtahLama wrote:
As with any argument with a moral majority…you have to argue budgets Pitt, jesus man…this is why you don’t win a single argument around here.
The war on THC will bankrupt our prison system…see how easy that was?[/quote]
I know I am naive , I just keep forgetting we are supposed to argue
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
As with any argument with a moral majority…you have to argue budgets Pitt, jesus man…this is why you don’t win a single argument around here.
The war on THC will bankrupt our prison system…see how easy that was?[/quote]
I know I am naive , I just keep forgetting we are supposed to argue[/quote]
If I have learned anything in this forum…you cannot change somebody’s moral position, either way.
But money talks, to both sides of the aisle.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
As with any argument with a moral majority…you have to argue budgets Pitt, jesus man…this is why you don’t win a single argument around here.
The war on THC will bankrupt our prison system…see how easy that was?[/quote]
I know I am naive , I just keep forgetting we are supposed to argue[/quote]
If I have learned anything in this forum…you cannot change somebody’s moral position, either way.
But money talks, to both sides of the aisle.[/quote]
No wonder I like reading your posts, you’re a very smart guy!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, to be fair, its official ad hominem week.[/quote]
"An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Ad hominem:
Your claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy isn’t true because you are moronic pothead.
Not an ad hominem:
Your claim that marijuana isn’t unhealthy because [cited medical authorities contradicting the claim]. Oh, and you’re a moronic pothead.[/quote]
Yeah well, you would not play it that straight, you mastered the art of the insinuated ad hominem.
[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah well, you would not play it that straight, you mastered the art of the insinuated ad hominem.[/quote]
Oh yeah? So I am not direct enough? I will work on that.
Back to the original topic though, seriously (besides the retards that donate their money to him/his church) who gives a rats ass what Pat Robertson thinks?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Back to the original topic though, seriously (besides the retards that donate their money to him/his church) who gives a rats ass what Pat Robertson thinks?[/quote]
While I’m not a member of his church or have any affiliation with him I do know that he’s fed hundreds of thousands of poor children throughout the world. And he does so on a regular basis. Those who attack him because of his very fundamental religious beliefs need to look at the totality of the man before they cast judgement.
Nor would I call those who donate money to his church “retards.”
Yeah, I know he’s funny looking and closes his eyes and prays on TV and does all kinds of things that our pornified pop cultural just can’t stand but the bottom line is that while he’s a bit strange he’s done some very, very wonderful things with that money which is donated.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Back to the original topic though, seriously (besides the retards that donate their money to him/his church) who gives a rats ass what Pat Robertson thinks?[/quote]
While I’m not a member of his church or have any affiliation with him I do know that he’s fed hundreds of thousands of poor children throughout the world. And he does so on a regular basis. Those who attack him because of his very fundamental religious beliefs need to look at the totality of the man before they cast judgement.
Nor would I call those who donate money to his church “retards.”
Yeah, I know he’s funny looking and closes his eyes and prays on TV and does all kinds of things that our pornified pop cultural just can’t stand but the bottom line is that while he’s a bit strange he’s done some very, very wonderful things with that money which is donated.
[/quote]
I think Pat Robertson is about as false a prophet as they come (not that he’s actually a prophet or claiming to be one but you catch my drift). His Operation Blessing has done good things while being involved in highly questionable activities. He is a transparent snake which is why I call those that willingly give him his money fools (retards). Although unfortunately all of us give this organization money through our taxes.
The money could be way better spent and Robertson is another in a long history of “men of god” that are intricately tied into business/politics/money in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Back to the original topic though, seriously (besides the retards that donate their money to him/his church) who gives a rats ass what Pat Robertson thinks?[/quote]
While I’m not a member of his church or have any affiliation with him I do know that he’s fed hundreds of thousands of poor children throughout the world. And he does so on a regular basis. Those who attack him because of his very fundamental religious beliefs need to look at the totality of the man before they cast judgement.
Nor would I call those who donate money to his church “retards.”
Yeah, I know he’s funny looking and closes his eyes and prays on TV and does all kinds of things that our pornified pop cultural just can’t stand but the bottom line is that while he’s a bit strange he’s done some very, very wonderful things with that money which is donated.
[/quote]
I think Pat Robertson is about as false a prophet as they come (not that he’s actually a prophet or claiming to be one but you catch my drift). His Operation Blessing has done good things while being involved in highly questionable activities. He is a transparent snake which is why I call those that willingly give him his money fools (retards). Although unfortunately all of us give this organization money through our taxes.
The money could be way better spent and Robertson is another in a long history of “men of god” that are intricately tied into business/politics/money in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus.[/quote]
So why don’t you explain these charges? How is he tied into business or politics in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus? You don’t like his religious message so he’s a bad person right? Just give him his due. How many starving orphans did you feed last year? Is the world better off having Robertson in it or Zeb and Storey?
He’s in our face daily and if we don’t like his message he’s a bad guy automatically to many. I can think of a very long list of public figures that I may personally not agree with but appreciate what they do with some of their time and money. Give Robertson his due!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Back to the original topic though, seriously (besides the retards that donate their money to him/his church) who gives a rats ass what Pat Robertson thinks?[/quote]
While I’m not a member of his church or have any affiliation with him I do know that he’s fed hundreds of thousands of poor children throughout the world. And he does so on a regular basis. Those who attack him because of his very fundamental religious beliefs need to look at the totality of the man before they cast judgement.
Nor would I call those who donate money to his church “retards.”
Yeah, I know he’s funny looking and closes his eyes and prays on TV and does all kinds of things that our pornified pop cultural just can’t stand but the bottom line is that while he’s a bit strange he’s done some very, very wonderful things with that money which is donated.
[/quote]
I think Pat Robertson is about as false a prophet as they come (not that he’s actually a prophet or claiming to be one but you catch my drift). His Operation Blessing has done good things while being involved in highly questionable activities. He is a transparent snake which is why I call those that willingly give him his money fools (retards). Although unfortunately all of us give this organization money through our taxes.
The money could be way better spent and Robertson is another in a long history of “men of god” that are intricately tied into business/politics/money in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus.[/quote]
So why don’t you explain these charges? How is he tied into business or politics in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus? You don’t like his religious message so he’s a bad person right? Just give him his due. How many starving orphans did you feed last year? Is the world better off having Robertson in it or Zeb and Storey?
He’s in our face daily and if we don’t like his message he’s a bad guy automatically to many. I can think of a very long list of public figures that I may personally not agree with but appreciate what they do with some of their time and money. Give Robertson his due!
[/quote]
Thread Hijack!
Robertson Wishes Harm to Peyton Manning and the Broncos!
End Hijack! LOL!
You have to laugh at that one
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Come up with a way to test for impairment at the time the person does something stupid (ex. getting behind the wheel of a car) and it would get legalized real quick.[/quote]
They’ve been working on something like this for about 20 years. Apparently they’re having trouble coming up with a reliable test that determines how long it’s been since someone smoked. Simple bloodtests don’t say whether you smoked last night or ten minutes ago. A saliva test is currently the newest and most realistic possibility, but state legislatures that are trying to enact this can’t decide on how many nanograms of THC there need to be in someone’s saliva to before he/she is impaired.
Personally, I say legalize it and forget about it. I’ve done a lot of research into this issue as it pertains to California. As far as Cal. goes, there isn’t a single credible study that indicates with any certainty that weed would bring in profits via tax revenue. I’ve explained the reasons why ad nauseum on here in the past, so if you really want to know why revenues are dubious at best, PM me and I’ll tell you why. Of course, this is only in reference to Prop. 19 in California, which was defeated in 2010.[/quote]
I would think that the majority of the money could come in the saving from not having to search out, prosecute and incarcerate all marijuana offenses.[/quote]
Don’t think that just because the DEA and similar agencies/bureaucracies have a budget set at, say, 10 million per year, that it’s going to go down if weed were legal. All legal weed means is more resources devoted to prosecuting other drug offenses. It will NOT lead to a shrinking of anyone’s budget.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Back to the original topic though, seriously (besides the retards that donate their money to him/his church) who gives a rats ass what Pat Robertson thinks?[/quote]
While I’m not a member of his church or have any affiliation with him I do know that he’s fed hundreds of thousands of poor children throughout the world. And he does so on a regular basis. Those who attack him because of his very fundamental religious beliefs need to look at the totality of the man before they cast judgement.
Nor would I call those who donate money to his church “retards.”
Yeah, I know he’s funny looking and closes his eyes and prays on TV and does all kinds of things that our pornified pop cultural just can’t stand but the bottom line is that while he’s a bit strange he’s done some very, very wonderful things with that money which is donated.
[/quote]
I think Pat Robertson is about as false a prophet as they come (not that he’s actually a prophet or claiming to be one but you catch my drift). His Operation Blessing has done good things while being involved in highly questionable activities. He is a transparent snake which is why I call those that willingly give him his money fools (retards). Although unfortunately all of us give this organization money through our taxes.
The money could be way better spent and Robertson is another in a long history of “men of god” that are intricately tied into business/politics/money in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus.[/quote]
So why don’t you explain these charges? How is he tied into business or politics in a way that is anything but the message of Jesus? You don’t like his religious message so he’s a bad person right? Just give him his due. How many starving orphans did you feed last year? Is the world better off having Robertson in it or Zeb and Storey?
He’s in our face daily and if we don’t like his message he’s a bad guy automatically to many. I can think of a very long list of public figures that I may personally not agree with but appreciate what they do with some of their time and money. Give Robertson his due!
[/quote]
Thread Hijack!
Robertson Wishes Harm to Peyton Manning and the Broncos!
End Hijack! LOL!
You have to laugh at that one[/quote]
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Why is it immoral to smoke weed? Because you can’t drive while high? Surely that’s an issue of being responsible to know when you shouldnt drive, be it tiredness, alchol, or weed. So what if it cause hallucinations, is that immoral in itself? Are you sure you’re not confusing the criminality that arises out of the prohibition of weed with the effects of weed itself?[/quote]
In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding John Locke makes a distinction between the description of an act - drunkenness: and the appraisal of the act as good, bad or indifferent. To appraise something we need to refer to some form of rule or measure. Locke describes three types: divine law, civil law and the law of opinion(which he called 'the law of fashion or private censure.) So yes, ‘immoral’ is not the right word to use. There’s more to it than that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Why is it immoral to smoke weed? Because you can’t drive while high? Surely that’s an issue of being responsible to know when you shouldnt drive, be it tiredness, alchol, or weed. So what if it cause hallucinations, is that immoral in itself? Are you sure you’re not confusing the criminality that arises out of the prohibition of weed with the effects of weed itself?[/quote]
In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding John Locke makes a distinction between the description of an act - drunkenness: and the appraisal of the act as good, bad or indifferent. To appraise something we need to refer to some form of rule or measure. Locke describes three types: divine law, civil law and the law of opinion(which he called 'the law of fashion or private censure.) So yes, ‘immoral’ is not the right word to use. There’s more to it than that.[/quote]
Funny thing about Locke, he wouldn’t have been in favor of prohibition as the father of contemporary liberalism (that is one of his numerous titles) and would have been against any person or any sort of entity (say corporation or church) imposing rule on man (unless they were slaves, Locke had slaves). For the most part he wanted people to make their own decisions (in fact he was probably the first to argue for the separation of church and state).
Cheers.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Funny thing about Locke, he wouldn’t have been in favor of prohibition as the father of contemporary liberalism (that is one of his numerous titles)
[/quote]
No, he’s the father of classical liberalism not contempary liberalism. Ideologies that are completely at odds with each other.
You haven’t read Locke have you?
‘The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.’
The desire for happiness and aversion to misery are ‘principles of action…lodged in our appetites…If left to their full swing, they would carry men to the over-turning of all morality.’ The function of moral laws is to ‘curb and restrain these exorbitant desires.’ The true ground of morality ‘can only be the will and law of god.’ - quotations are Locke
No he didn’t. He owned shares in a slave trading company.
‘I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.’ - Locke
No such concept exists. The term “separation of church and state” comes from a letter by Jefferson. Read it in context. It carries none of the meaning that was later attached to it. Locke was hostile to the Catholic church for political and religious reasons. However he did not advocate “separation of church and state” as it is understood now-a-days.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Funny thing about Locke, he wouldn’t have been in favor of prohibition as the father of contemporary liberalism (that is one of his numerous titles)
[/quote]
No, he’s the father of classical liberalism not contempary liberalism. Ideologies that are completely at odds with each other.
You haven’t read Locke have you?
‘The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.’
The desire for happiness and aversion to misery are ‘principles of action…lodged in our appetites…If left to their full swing, they would carry men to the over-turning of all morality.’ The function of moral laws is to ‘curb and restrain these exorbitant desires.’ The true ground of morality ‘can only be the will and law of god.’ - quotations are Locke
No he didn’t. He owned shares in a slave trading company.
‘I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.’ - Locke
No such concept exists. The term “separation of church and state” comes from a letter by Jefferson. Read it in context. It carries none of the meaning that was later attached to it. Locke was hostile to the Catholic church for political and religious reasons. However he did not advocate “separation of church and state” as it is understood now-a-days.[/quote]
You don’t seem to understand what Locke believed was the state of nature.
I believe it is you who should familiarize yourself with John Locke.
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke’s anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke’s monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke also wrote a variety of important political, religious and educational works including the Two Treatises of Government, the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education
Straight from Stanford Encyclopedia, sources don’t get much better.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t seem to understand what Locke believed was the state of nature.
[/quote]
How so?
[quote]
I believe it is you who should familiarize yourself with John Locke.
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke’s anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke’s monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke also wrote a variety of important political, religious and educational works including the Two Treatises of Government, the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education
Straight from Stanford Encyclopedia, sources don’t get much better.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/index.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/influence.html[/quote]
Not sure what part of that relates to what I said. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with my posts again.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You don’t seem to understand what Locke believed was the state of nature.
[/quote]
How so?
[quote]
I believe it is you who should familiarize yourself with John Locke.
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke’s anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke’s monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke also wrote a variety of important political, religious and educational works including the Two Treatises of Government, the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education
Straight from Stanford Encyclopedia, sources don’t get much better.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/index.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/influence.html[/quote]
Not sure what part of that relates to what I said. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with my posts again.[/quote]
I know you are but what am I?
Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church.
[/quote]
Absolutely. But when you said:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Funny thing about Locke, he wouldn’t have been in favor of prohibition
[/quote]
and
and
and
You were incorrect as I have shown above.