Photographing children

"Steve" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
The only lives being ruined are those openly
commiting illegal acts and the innocent people
they victimize. I'm sure arresting a bank robber
ruins his life and is a disappointment to his
family, but would you truly argue for legalization
of bank robbery on those grounds?


I realize that a substantial part of your problem
is the inability to present a cogent and effective
argument, but do you really equate drug use
and bank robbery? (snip)

(snip) Would you suggest that somebody who
has oral sex (snip)


Do you really equate oral sex and illegal drug use? It is unwise to accuse
others of lacking a cogent and effective argument when using an analogy if
you're going to use a similar analogy in the same message. Since there is
nothing similar, I clearly didn't equate drug use and bank robbery. However,
the arrests are similar in that both ruins a person's life and is a
disappointment to the familes. Therefore, anyone with reasonable reading
skills would understand the analogy being made related to the arrests in
both situations.

Stewart

"Big Bill" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
The only lives being ruined are those openly
commiting illegal acts and the innocent people
they victimize.


So when a young man is sentenced to prison for
several years, his wife & children use the money
he earns in prison to live on? (snip)


Perhaps the husband should have thought about that before committing a
crime. Regardless, in case you haven't noticed, Bill, women joined the
workforce decades ago and many today earn as much or more than their
husbands. If all else fails, there are social programs available until she
can find a job.


(snip) Of course they should. And, we all know, that
*you* are, of course, knowledgeable about the intimate
habits of every one of your friends. (snip)


When it comes to somebody I would lend my vehicle to, I would clearly have
to know that person very well first. If I had any doubts whatsoever, that
person would never drive off in my vehicle. Indeed, if there were any
serious doubts, that person would not even be riding in my vehicle as a
passenger. And, yes, I have refused to provide rides to those suspected of
using drugs when there is a possibility of them being in possession of drugs
while riding in my vehicle.

Stewart

"Steve" wrote:

Maybe you should stop presenting unsupported
arguments until you're willing to back them up.
As near as I can tell, your only strategy is to
make simple claims then fail to provide any
substance to back them up. (snip)


Steve, maybe you should stop trying to tell me what to do and stop trying
to take digs at me at every opportunity with none of it adding to the topic.
This is the forth or fifth time tonight I've read such garbage from you.


Funny you should assert a right to ban drugs when
elsewhere you're unwilling to believe there's a
right to take pictures. (snip)


Please note the subject header and read the previous messages in a thread
before responding, Steve. The "right" to take pictures being discussed is
the "right" to take pictures of the panties of little girls in public parks
and up women's skirts in public places. Mxsmanic argued he has a right to do
exactly that since nobody is suppossedly harmed. I'm responding to that by
pointing out that society has a right to ban drugs under the same "no harm"
argument.


(snip) His position is that (snip)


I think Mxsmanic is more than capable of telling us what his position is,
and has done so very effectively without your attempts to mold his position
to fit yours.


(snip) He didn't say *illegal* drugs. (snip)


No, he is simply trying to use legal drugs to support his position on
illegal drugs, with little success with anyone other than you.


Many, and perhaps most, Americans have the
same uninformed and misinformed biases
that you display, (snip) you're still free to
belong to the Flat Earth Society if you'd like.


Okay, enough of that. Our conversation is finished until you can discuss
matters without insults, Steve.

Stewart

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jer writes:


I suppose subjectiveness is at play here - yet, she's welcome to pop
over for beers and a movie anytime she wants.


I'm sure she makes good conversation; she has a reputation for
intelligence. But I would not find her the least bit distracting
physically. And I rather suspect that she'd prefer it that way.



Good conversation is always a plus, but anything else is her problem
after she runs off these other two that plan on hanging on for a while
longer.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Steve" wrote:

Let me refresh your memory:
"So don't even attempt to justify drug use
to me - you have zero chance of doing so."

You've told us flat out that regardless of the
facts you won't change your mind. (snip)


No, I told Mxsmanic, I believe, to not attempt to "justify drug use." The
key words there are "justify" and "use." That is very different from having
an open or closed mind on the _facts_ surrounding illegal drugs.

Stewart

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Steve" wrote

(snip) The vast majority of drug users, whether
it's alcohol or illegal drugs, only abuse them in
the pejorative legal sense. (snip)



Nonsense. Alcohol is just as available on the streets as illegal drugs.
However, drug users choose illegal drugs instead exactly because there is no
alcohol made that can match the massive physical and psychological effects
of drugs, especially those like herion, cocaine, and so on. But lets just
stick to the lessor drugs, like marijuana, for the moment. A person would
have to drink a six or seven glasses of strong alcohol to get physical
effects similar to a single marijuana cigarette. Therefore a person
consuming only four or five marijuana cigarettes per day, less than the
typical user might consume, is impacting the body in a manner similar to 24
to 35 glasses of strong alcohol - abuse by any measurement.

Stewart




Again, do you have any cites for this assertion or are you speaking from
personal experience? A lack of cites from you *will be* an answer.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Steve" wrote:

Let me refresh your memory:
"So don't even attempt to justify drug use
to me - you have zero chance of doing so."

You've told us flat out that regardless of the
facts you won't change your mind. (snip)


No, I told Mxsmanic, I believe, to not attempt to "justify drug use."
The
key words there are "justify" and "use." That is very different from
having
an open or closed mind on the _facts_ surrounding illegal drugs.


I was trying to stay out of this wildly off-topic thread but I have a couple
of rhetorical questions for you. Why are some drugs illegal? Why is
marijuana illegal? Why are alcohol and tobacco legal? Who do you think our
(USA) legislators are influenced by when designating a drug legal or
illegal?

If you can rationalize the contradictions that are raised by the above
questions then you're too much of a simpleton to be discussing such a
complex issue as this.

Greg

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Nonsense. Alcohol is just as available on the streets as illegal
drugs.
However, drug users choose illegal drugs instead exactly because there
is no
alcohol made that can match the massive physical and psychological
effects
of drugs, especially those like herion, cocaine, and so on. But lets
just
stick to the lessor drugs, like marijuana, for the moment. A person
would
have to drink a six or seven glasses of strong alcohol to get physical
effects similar to a single marijuana cigarette. Therefore a person
consuming only four or five marijuana cigarettes per day, less than the
typical user might consume, is impacting the body in a manner similar to
24
to 35 glasses of strong alcohol - abuse by any measurement.


You must be high. That's the only reason why you could pull such bull****
out of your ass.

Greg

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Jer" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

And if that means we have to lock up a few
million more criminals who openly violate
the laws, and shooting a final dose of drugs
into the illegal drug users who victimize
others, I have absolutely no problem
whatsoever with that.


Interesting that you have no problem with 'polite'
society killing someone, but when it comes to
someone killing themself with drugs, you swing
the other way. (snip)



Interesting you would choose to twist my words. I didn't just talk about
"killing someone" with no clarification to that. Instead, I talked about the
legal execution of those "who victimize others" - a reference to those
(mentioned earlier) shooting and killing others in the commission of drug
related activities or crimes. There is obviously a huge difference between
drug users and those who murder others - one is worthy of compassion while
the other is not.

Stewart




Well, I swing the other way. I'm against capital punishment, but I have
no problem with someone killing themself however they see fit. When it
comes to bad people, Mr. Compassion is out to lunch.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

It worked for Prohibition. (snip)



I've already said it didn't work for prohibition. The illegal alcohol
trade continued long after prohibition ended and is still a problem to this
day (now dwarfed by the much larger illegal drug trade, but still a
problem).

Stewart




I'm still confused about what constitutes illegal alcohol. Since
prohibition ended, I'm unaware of it's existence.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'