4 ms·

If they live out in the woods on their own, sure. Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.

by nkrisc 6y ago

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Are you from the US? If so do you agree with US gun culture which "2017, [...] the [the CDC's] National Center for Health Statistics reports that gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968, with 39,773 deaths by firearm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...) One person paralysed by a contaminant (not heroin itself) = bad, but tens of thousands of deaths otherwise = ok. I agree with laws and social restrictions if they are good ones that reflect the proportionate level of harm. But you know this will go nowhere, unlikely you'll reply but this'll get downvoted because people aren't willing to face up to maybe being wrong. Edit: none of this is about drugs or guns. It's about common sense and thinking for yourself. Drugs particularly are where aberrations in these show up.
- morelisp 6y ago
  This is a weird comparison. Most Americans both reject casual heroin use and support additional measures restricting gun sales.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I struggle to see the weirdness. Whether or not what you say is true, and actually I suspect it is, that doesn't change the massive death discrepancy I gave.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      It’s weird because people agree both are bad. There is no aberration.
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        Things are bad not in absolutes, which you are suggesting, but in degree. Contrary to your flat statement I do not agree that taking heroin is bad, it only becomes bad when it affects other people negatively.
        nkrisc 6y ago
        And guns aren't bad unless you kill someone with one. And yet I'm still in favor of restrictions on both.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        And on the whole, I'd strongly tend to agree.
- nkrisc 6y ago
  For what it's worth, restrictions on guns are one of those restrictions I'm OK with. Why do you think I'm OK with the outrageous number of gun deaths we have? Besides this is about heroin.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    The discussion is about proportionality. > Why do you think I'm OK with the outrageous number of gun deaths we have? I'm not but guns tend to be used to kill other people much more than drugs can be used to kill other people. So I'm more ok with people taking drugs. But not fully ok, the issue's too complex. > Besides this is about heroin. It's not. The damage done was most likely from a contaminant (see my note about MPTP) so not heroin. And if it was heroin it's still not about heroin because I said, exactly in the post you replied to, "Edit: none of this is about drugs or guns. It's about common sense and thinking for yourself." What I feel like I'm getting is kneejerk unthinking reactions from anti-drugs people. I may be wrong.
mikem170 6y ago
>Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves. Unless 100% of people agree to the restrictions then you are imposing on others, not just yourself. Personally I think that we as a society impose on a lot of people for a lot of things and a lot of it is wrong. I like the principal of imposing on others as little as possible, preferably not at all. Otherwise there's nothing to stop the more powerful majority from screwing over the less powerful minority at some point. Some examples: Drug laws to imprison african-americans, zoning laws to keep the poor out, voting for taxes on others for charitable causes, blue laws, corporate monopolies, the environment and the tragedy of the commons, making it illegal for the homeless to sleep, algorithms and bureaucracy imposed on others, punishing non-conformity, etc. I've always thought the principal of not imposing on others is a good idea. I thought it would make a great amendment to the constitution. With this principal to limit the tyranny of the majority, and the manipulated or fickle masses, we could still tackle all of societies problems, and filter out a lot of abuses along the way. But lately I'm thinking that this just seems to be impractical. It seems that too many individuals, groups, corporations, and leaders want to impose on others. They are selfish and want the world to be as they say and they don't care so much about who has to pay or suffer for it. I wish this got talked about more. I assume we all have in common that we don't want to be imposed upon by others.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > Unless 100% of people agree to the restrictions then you are imposing on others, not just yourself That's silly. 100% of people will never agree to it eg. people who are in prison aren't agreeing to it.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    Ah, let me add some clarification... In a society where an effort is made that the law will impose on others as little as possible there would inevitably be people who misbehave by imposing on others - physically hurting people or stealing from them for example. People who impose on others in this manner should still be punished, or maybe exiled. But there are a lot of people in jail who have not hurt anyone else, for crimes like drug possession. In the comment you responded to I gave other examples where a majority imposes on others with dubious justification. Look at how fickle U.S. politics is, with our federal-tribal-leaders now expressing the will of a new 51% majority that changes every couple of terms, increasingly treating the constitution as something to work around. It seems that there are way too many people/groups who would be happy to force everyone to their way of thinking, worldwide, and that leaves lots of room for abuse and corruption. I suppose there's not much that can be done if most people think that's ok.

If they live out in the woods on their own, sure. Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.

by nkrisc 6y ago

If they live out in the woods on their own, sure. Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Are you from the US? If so do you agree with US gun culture which "2017, [...] the [the CDC's] National Center for Health Statistics reports that gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968, with 39,773 deaths by firearm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...) One person paralysed by a contaminant (not heroin itself) = bad, but tens of thousands of deaths otherwise = ok. I agree with laws and social restrictions if they are good ones that reflect the proportionate level of harm. But you know this will go nowhere, unlikely you'll reply but this'll get downvoted because people aren't willing to face up to maybe being wrong. Edit: none of this is about drugs or guns. It's about common sense and thinking for yourself. Drugs particularly are where aberrations in these show up.

morelisp 6y ago
This is a weird comparison. Most Americans both reject casual heroin use and support additional measures restricting gun sales.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I struggle to see the weirdness. Whether or not what you say is true, and actually I suspect it is, that doesn't change the massive death discrepancy I gave.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    It’s weird because people agree both are bad. There is no aberration.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Things are bad not in absolutes, which you are suggesting, but in degree. Contrary to your flat statement I do not agree that taking heroin is bad, it only becomes bad when it affects other people negatively.
      - nkrisc 6y ago
        And guns aren't bad unless you kill someone with one. And yet I'm still in favor of restrictions on both.
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        And on the whole, I'd strongly tend to agree.
nkrisc 6y ago
For what it's worth, restrictions on guns are one of those restrictions I'm OK with. Why do you think I'm OK with the outrageous number of gun deaths we have? Besides this is about heroin.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  The discussion is about proportionality. > Why do you think I'm OK with the outrageous number of gun deaths we have? I'm not but guns tend to be used to kill other people much more than drugs can be used to kill other people. So I'm more ok with people taking drugs. But not fully ok, the issue's too complex. > Besides this is about heroin. It's not. The damage done was most likely from a contaminant (see my note about MPTP) so not heroin. And if it was heroin it's still not about heroin because I said, exactly in the post you replied to, "Edit: none of this is about drugs or guns. It's about common sense and thinking for yourself." What I feel like I'm getting is kneejerk unthinking reactions from anti-drugs people. I may be wrong.

mikem170 6y ago

>Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves. Unless 100% of people agree to the restrictions then you are imposing on others, not just yourself. Personally I think that we as a society impose on a lot of people for a lot of things and a lot of it is wrong. I like the principal of imposing on others as little as possible, preferably not at all. Otherwise there's nothing to stop the more powerful majority from screwing over the less powerful minority at some point. Some examples: Drug laws to imprison african-americans, zoning laws to keep the poor out, voting for taxes on others for charitable causes, blue laws, corporate monopolies, the environment and the tragedy of the commons, making it illegal for the homeless to sleep, algorithms and bureaucracy imposed on others, punishing non-conformity, etc. I've always thought the principal of not imposing on others is a good idea. I thought it would make a great amendment to the constitution. With this principal to limit the tyranny of the majority, and the manipulated or fickle masses, we could still tackle all of societies problems, and filter out a lot of abuses along the way. But lately I'm thinking that this just seems to be impractical. It seems that too many individuals, groups, corporations, and leaders want to impose on others. They are selfish and want the world to be as they say and they don't care so much about who has to pay or suffer for it. I wish this got talked about more. I assume we all have in common that we don't want to be imposed upon by others.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> Unless 100% of people agree to the restrictions then you are imposing on others, not just yourself That's silly. 100% of people will never agree to it eg. people who are in prison aren't agreeing to it.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Ah, let me add some clarification... In a society where an effort is made that the law will impose on others as little as possible there would inevitably be people who misbehave by imposing on others - physically hurting people or stealing from them for example. People who impose on others in this manner should still be punished, or maybe exiled. But there are a lot of people in jail who have not hurt anyone else, for crimes like drug possession. In the comment you responded to I gave other examples where a majority imposes on others with dubious justification. Look at how fickle U.S. politics is, with our federal-tribal-leaders now expressing the will of a new 51% majority that changes every couple of terms, increasingly treating the constitution as something to work around. It seems that there are way too many people/groups who would be happy to force everyone to their way of thinking, worldwide, and that leaves lots of room for abuse and corruption. I suppose there's not much that can be done if most people think that's ok.