On Aug 13, 8:30Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> On Aug 14, 12:30Â pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 13, 7:27Â pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 13, 7:10Â pm, T-minus108
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Aug 13, 9:35Â pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>> On Aug 13, 5:10Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>> Often proclaimed by drinkers and drug takers.
>
>>>>> And fags, and nudists, and whoremongers, and
>>>>> those who don't want to be told what to eat, even
>>>>> if it's beef (or pork), and those who oppose every
>>>>> sort of paternailist or maternalistic nannygoat
>>>>> state-mongers.
>
>>>>>> Waddya think?
>
>>>>> I think the real crime in this country is when whatever
>>>>> brand of nannygoat manages to become fashionable
>>>>> exacts its draconian desire to rule the private lives of
>>>>> others by instituting whatever prohibitionism they
>>>>> favor.
>
>>>>> "The nannygoat is the worst sort of tyrant, because
>>>>> unlike the selfish tyrant, who becomes sated eventually,
>>>>> the nannygoat will never leave you alone, because the
>>>>> nannygoat tyrannizes you for your own good."
>>>>> -paraphrase of C.S. Lewis
>
>>>> Eactly how is being gay concidered a crime? Furthermore, how does
>>>> being gay hurt someone?
>
>>> Exactly my point. Â It is a victimless crime.
>>> It was only in recent decades that it ceased to be a crime
>>> even in the UK. Â Alan Turing, of Turing Machine fame, killed
>>> himself after being arrested for the crime of homosexuality
>>> and being offered the choice of prison (where he would no doubt
>>> be mistreated badly) and some hormone "treatments" that were
>>> akin to chemical castration and would have eventually caused
>>> him to grow tits.
>
>>> Anyway, I wanted to bring up other examples of victimless
>>> crimes. Â That's all. Â A victimless crime is none of the State's
>>> business. Â That just flows from the founding principles of
>>> liberal democracy.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Perhaps I should have put it, "victimless crimes are
>> not real crimes at all, and thus not the business of
>> the State."
>
>> Anyway, I am sure you and I agree on that point. Â It
>> seems Big Fletch (and many others) disagree on the
>> same principle when it comes to drinking, smoking,
>> or drugs.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> At last, something on track that I can respond to.
>
> A close friends teenage daughter has started smoking dope. So far ,
> the effects have screwed up her work prospects.
>
> When asked 'why did you you take it up'...her answer (she started
> smoking cigaretes also). "It was good enough for mom".
You will note, however, that many teens consider
the idea that it pisses off mom just as good a sales
point. Also, you will find many a child of alcoholic
parents who will never touch the stuff simply because
of their experiences.
There is also the issue that everyone has an excuse.
> Just to reinforce the point of the thread, I wonder what the mothers
> opinion is?
It could be that her mother is not against it. Although
use that causes someone problems could be considered
a problem. In any case, even if one model's one's
behavior on another, that is a choice made by the
individual as well.
> It is well documented that children are more affected by what they
> see, than what they hear, and that the abused usually become the
> abuser.
I am not sure I believe that one. To be sure, a good many
abusers use the excuse that they were abused as a child,
as do many murderers. But an excuse is not a reason.
> I hope this doesnt deterierate into a pro or anti drug discussion.
> That would deflect the point.
Yes, I am sure. In any case, Frank Zappa dealt with his
children by telling them they could do whatever drugs they
wanted, as long as they did it at home. With nothing to
rebel against, they stayed away from them. The attempts
of adults to control their children when they reach the age
where instinct tells them to get away from their parents
are often futile.
