5 ms·

What explanation, precisely?

lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
If you don't see what's objectionable with saying "lets be more like that police state in how they deal with drugs", then the things we're striving for are so fundamentally different that we probably won't have a very productive conversation. I was replying to the other guy. Have a nice day.
- joemazerino 3y ago
  Are less overdose deaths better than more?
  - lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
    Does this problem have only one dimension?
  - noduerme 3y ago
    This is a specious argument. Singapore puts drug users to death. Are fewer executions better than more?
    - overstay8930 3y ago
      Nobody asks to die from a fentanyl overdose, while the risks of drug trafficking in Singapore are told to you the moment you arrive in the country. I do not feel bad for anyone caught with drugs in Singapore, but I sympathize with the addicts in America who have been constantly lied to by people who pretend to care about them.
      - latency-guy2 3y ago
        > are told to you the moment you arrive in the country. To be fair, American citizens and its visitors are also told what happens to them should they be caught with drugs and/or distributing them. Exactness notwithstanding about regional/local laws and grams, its the same story from when you're a kid all the way up to your first run in with the enforcement. Singapore is just explicit about one thing more than anything else, you will die.
      - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
        Which is the real issue. The US is very much built on the idea that it's fine to lie to people and pretend to care about them while aggressively exploiting them. It's not a drug problem, it's a sociopathy problem. The Sacklers were allowed to remain billionaires, CVS and other defendants have had to pay out billions - and all of this is considered cost of business instead of criminal activity, even though it has destroyed millions of lives.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - layer8 3y ago
    Does the end justify the means?
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > I was replying to the other guy. I see, so that gives you full credentials to insult me. Either way, there's more than 3 people here. > "lets be more like that police state in how they deal with drugs", then the things we're striving for are so fundamentally different that we probably won't have a very productive conversation. If that's how you solve problems then I agree, no discussion should ever be had when you're in the room. Singapore, Portugal, and USA, which two are similar than the other combination? I also do not think Singapore is a "police state", and their government and people would also firmly disagree with you.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    So you don’t think being a police state is bad, but you also don’t think Singapore is one? What aspect do you think they are missing?!
    - lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
      He makes vague statements that insinuate an idea in your mind, you assume that's what he meant and respond to that, but then he claims that's not what he meant but doesn't clarify. He's just a bored troll, stop feeding him.
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      Let's define "police state" then instead of dancing around what it means then. To me, quite a few qualities, but the most important is all that matter to me, e.g. multiple political parties, the official number of law enforcement is too low to the general population (~10k enforcers to ~6m gen.pop. in Singapore) and technology has not progressed to a level that would lead me to believe numbers don't matter. From this definition, you might be (un)surprised to see that there are no countries that fall under "police state" to me. That is genuinely my belief. Governments are too weak to exert that much control such that they cannot be overwhelmed by just 10% of the population from wreaking havoc any singular random day. "Police state bad" just does not mean a whole lot to me. Nor does "liberal democracy", its empty and more indicative of the person making the statement than anything.

If you don't see what's objectionable with saying "lets be more like that police state in how they deal with drugs", then the things we're striving for are so fundamentally different that we probably won't have a very productive conversation. I was replying to the other guy. Have a nice day.

joemazerino 3y ago
Are less overdose deaths better than more?
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
  Does this problem have only one dimension?
- noduerme 3y ago
  This is a specious argument. Singapore puts drug users to death. Are fewer executions better than more?
  - overstay8930 3y ago
    Nobody asks to die from a fentanyl overdose, while the risks of drug trafficking in Singapore are told to you the moment you arrive in the country. I do not feel bad for anyone caught with drugs in Singapore, but I sympathize with the addicts in America who have been constantly lied to by people who pretend to care about them.
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      > are told to you the moment you arrive in the country. To be fair, American citizens and its visitors are also told what happens to them should they be caught with drugs and/or distributing them. Exactness notwithstanding about regional/local laws and grams, its the same story from when you're a kid all the way up to your first run in with the enforcement. Singapore is just explicit about one thing more than anything else, you will die.
    - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
      Which is the real issue. The US is very much built on the idea that it's fine to lie to people and pretend to care about them while aggressively exploiting them. It's not a drug problem, it's a sociopathy problem. The Sacklers were allowed to remain billionaires, CVS and other defendants have had to pay out billions - and all of this is considered cost of business instead of criminal activity, even though it has destroyed millions of lives.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- layer8 3y ago
  Does the end justify the means?
latency-guy2 3y ago
> I was replying to the other guy. I see, so that gives you full credentials to insult me. Either way, there's more than 3 people here. > "lets be more like that police state in how they deal with drugs", then the things we're striving for are so fundamentally different that we probably won't have a very productive conversation. If that's how you solve problems then I agree, no discussion should ever be had when you're in the room. Singapore, Portugal, and USA, which two are similar than the other combination? I also do not think Singapore is a "police state", and their government and people would also firmly disagree with you.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  So you don’t think being a police state is bad, but you also don’t think Singapore is one? What aspect do you think they are missing?!
  - lkdfjlkdfjlg 3y ago
    He makes vague statements that insinuate an idea in your mind, you assume that's what he meant and respond to that, but then he claims that's not what he meant but doesn't clarify. He's just a bored troll, stop feeding him.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    Let's define "police state" then instead of dancing around what it means then. To me, quite a few qualities, but the most important is all that matter to me, e.g. multiple political parties, the official number of law enforcement is too low to the general population (~10k enforcers to ~6m gen.pop. in Singapore) and technology has not progressed to a level that would lead me to believe numbers don't matter. From this definition, you might be (un)surprised to see that there are no countries that fall under "police state" to me. That is genuinely my belief. Governments are too weak to exert that much control such that they cannot be overwhelmed by just 10% of the population from wreaking havoc any singular random day. "Police state bad" just does not mean a whole lot to me. Nor does "liberal democracy", its empty and more indicative of the person making the statement than anything.