Non-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

A place to sit back, hang out, and make monkey noises about anything you'd like.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I'm a person with very strong opinions, and I'm very set in my ways and unlikely to change, be it my eugenics leanings, my love/lust relationship with Muslims, my hatred of guns or even my adamant belief that only pathetic people prefer cats to dogs. I'd like to say your guys opinions have helped change me on those topics, but they've done exactly jack shit. However, there are a scant few issues I haven't been able to form an opinion on because I myself am unsure. So, I'd like to invite you all to share your opinions on the following topics, ideally with some justification, to help me convince me to a viewpoint so I can evolve as a person.

1. The Israel-Palestine Conflict

I don't particularly like Muslims, but I also don't like Jews, so I'm fairly impartial to the religious side of this debate. On one hand, I know Israel is far more friendly to the West and Western values, so they have that advantage over the Muslims. However, I do feel like the entire reasoning behind the formation of Israel, that the Jews deserve this land just because their great, great ancestors owned it and their book says so is an awful reason to take someone's land, and Israel haven't exactly been the best to the Muslims, so I honestly don't know where to stand.

2. Muslim Immigration

Again, I don't like Muslims, or to be fair, I don't like Islam. While there are many Muslims in the country I care about, the Muslims fleeing the issues don't seem to hold our values, which isn't great for me as a very open bisexual, and polls among the countries haven't exactly shown the most LGBT friendly values. Plus, these immigrants cause risk to me through the violent majority getting in, through the ideologies they spread and support, through the economic strain they add and through the Draconian anti-freedom laws having more of a violent minority inevitably lead to.

However, another part of me feels sympathy and pity for these people, and I've seen interviews with many of these people who seem like very decent people, and I've also had it argued that the more people fleeing ISIS and similar groups further prevents their radicalization and their working under these groups, which only gives them further power. Plus, our cruelty to the immigrants is great propaganda for them.

3. Gambling

I dunno if I think gambling should be legal. On one side, I'm fairly liberal and tend towards a laissez-faire attitude to most things, and my dad always says the lotto is a tax on the stupid, and gambling is just businesses doing the same. But, gambling addiction is definitely an illness and gambling is very predatory in nature, and it's effect can stretch far farther than on just the gambler themselves, so I don't entirely know what to think.

Interesting side fact, my great-great whatever grandfather was supposed to head to America with his brother on the Titanic, but lost his ticket gambling so only his brother could go. Whilst I'm not entirely sure how much truth there is in that story, I know for a fact his brother died on the Titanic, so there's that.

***

Anyhow, those are three topics I'd like your opinions on because my opinion isn't fully formed and I'm curious. I'm sure I'll add more issues I'm struggling with tomorrow or something if people actually respond to this.

Seeing as I have no solid opinion on those topics, I'm not even going to( start insulting you guys for answering, so yay! Well, probably. If you come in here and start talking about why Israel are just Bourgeois deserving of being killed to the last man or some bullshit, I might. But I'll try not to! 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
I lived in LV, NV for a while, everywhere I move to now I immediately notice the lack of casinos and hotels. I always wonder how cities make money if not from casinos and hotels. These shit hole cities without more than a few slot machines in a random corner of a market store shouldn't exist in my mind, yet they do.

Gambling is great though. Gamble it all. Gamble on.

I don't care about muslims or whatever fighting is going on in the middle east/mesopotamia. Was there ever a time in human history that place hasn't been fighting about something? Ironic that some holy place of religions that preach peace is constantly at war.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Just want to correct you on something:

Islam doesn't "preach peace", it preaches justice. War is only advocated in the act of self defense. This is why for instance Muhammad conquered the Quraysh tribe, because the Battle of Badr and the battle of Uhud and Hijrah and stuff, or almost went to war with the Romans, because of the Expedition to Tabouk. Another example is the punishment of the Banu Qurayza tribe; because they betrayed the Muslims during the Trench.

of course don't expect people to follow that. here's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad) Muhammad clearly talking about how christians are not the enemy of muslims and yet theres still so much animosity towards Christians in the Middle East.

Edit: But I guess it doesn't really matter right?

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

The Quran calls for the killing of all non-believers several times, although that could exclude Christians and Jews depending how you look at it. Not really in self-defense, that.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

1. I'm with Israel here. If you don't like Jews, then wouldn't it be better if they were far away from your clover island? Plus, they either bought most of the land (fairly and legally) or kept it after being attacked by other countries (thus not being the belligerent side). As for the Palestinians, they do have other countries, the West Bank (which is relatively peaceful), and Gaza (which is an evil arse in my opinion).

2. Assimilation is fine or at least instill values like tolerance of other people instead of killing them. Many Muslims are perfectly non-murderous. However, when you shove them all in a ghetto or have them be led by insane totalitarians, then things can go downhill fast for Steves (or Jews or Christians or non the right kind of Muslims or women or just about anybody). Let them in as long unless your country won't hate them (for the immigrants' sake), can't afford to do so (such as a poor or overcrowded one), or they can't pass the safety measures.Muslim bans are highly unethical in principal and rather stupid in my opinion.

3. Gambling is bad. Nonetheless, stupid people already have enough problems, and people will gamble regardless of laws. Additionally, I do not want to waste the police force on arresting gamblers. Thus, I'd say legal but regulated, discouraged, and maybe taxed (sort of like cigarettes in the US).

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

As a poker player, I will just state that I've never hurt anyone. And I have the ability to walk away from the table when I win or lose. There's bigger problems in the world than worrying about gambling. 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I think the issue is how some people hurt themselves and their families by gambling very heavily (like Cinnamon Nicole, that lady who spent her life savings in gambling and lost, then she and her family couldn't go home.)

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

 

 

True, I realized after I replied he was looking for an argument to sway his views. 

 

As for that example, the same could be said for alcohol, or smoking, or any other addiction. At the end of the day, it's not the product's fault, it's the person's responsibility. 

Alcohol, cigs, and gambling should be legal. All of them or none of them. They can all be looked at as vices, but for a lot of people, those things are not vices. 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
There are people with addictive personalities and it's arguable how much of that they're in control of. Though I wouldn't want alcohol (or gambling etc.) made illegal just because there are people genetically inclined to be addicts, something can be said for limiting the ability of companies to shove their weak points in their face 24/7 in a bid to wring them for everything they've got.

Seriously gambling being something you have to go out of your way to do on a vacation or whatever seems like a reasonable compromise to me. As a bonus that's a nice assurance it's mostly people with some kind of disposable income so hopefully they're not selling their kids' food stamps to play the slots.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Where would you consider the line, though? Marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine, there's many people who are fully functioning members of society who would be less harmed by their consumption then gambling.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Last time I checked, gambling can't physically harm you but the other three substances you listed can. 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Not directly, no. So is physical harm where you draw the line?

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

There shouldn't be a line, people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want if it doesn't harm anybody else. 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Alright, understood now.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
How does marijuana physically harm you? There's far more argument for banning ordinary cigarettes.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

This article is pretty 'lukewarm' on the matter of marijuana causing stupidity. I haven't read through it all, but from what I have read - it at least, in the long-term "cumulative pot use was linked to worse verbal memory. For every five years of marijuana use, a person would remember one less word, on average, from a list of 15 they were asked to memorize. However, no declines in executive function or processing speed were found."

So yes, maybe it does have detrimental effects on the user - but (probably) not to the extent of other substances.

http://www.livescience.com/54513-does-marijuana-make-you-stupid.html

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I never argued for banning cigarettes or marijuana, it's just that marijuana has the possibility of physically harming you while there is none with gambling. 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

To be fair, I'd say most people who have serious gambling problems would say the same, but point taken.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

On the whole Muslim 'immigration' thing, I'm assuming that by 'immigration' you mean 'asylum seeking'. Anyway, since everyone has a right to asylum there shouldn't be an outright ban on refugees (praise/blame the UN for that, I think they established this rule). What we need are more effective and efficient systems at ensuring legitimate refugees enter our country (instead of economic refugees, terrorists etc. etc.) to maintain border security. Australia has a refugee problem - which we eventually solved by putting refugees in limbo on Manus and Nauru. Over 40% of these refugees have stayed in these places for 2+ years - where the culture clash between islanders and Middle Easterns results in violence and humiliation (note that the aggressors are the islanders, not the MEs). Doctors aren't allowed to disclose information about their conditions, journalists are barred entry, and the last time humanitarian groups assessed their conditions, they were described as a biohazard. And this is just for 2000 refugees. Balancing border security with humanitarian rights should be key.

So yes, Muslims should be able to enter a country with refugee status.

 

Go Israel, because they're the closest thing to a friend in the Middle East.

 

Gambling shouldn't be illegal because we don't need the government taking away a recreation on the basis of "some people can't control themselves, let's ruin the fun for everyone".

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Well, no one really has a right to asylum seeking, or anything for that matter. The fact that the UN says its one doesn't really effect me anymore than the fact the US says there's a right to have a gun.

Where do you draw the line with the government taking recreational things away? The same argument could be put forward for cocaine, ecstasy or other drugs, some of which are only indulged in rarely by functioning members of society.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

The humanitarian rights the UN has laid out are fine for me because they bring about the 'best' conditions of liveability (my opinion). If I had to seek asylum I'd be glad to know that I have a right to that, at the very least. Yes, if we take a nihilistic stand point, no one really has a right to asylum (or anything for that matter). Yet, we wouldn't want the governments to take that standpoint when it comes to our rights (I assume). I don't want to draw a line anywhere if we're going to be selective about what should and shouldn't be a right, since my family, friends or myself can be in a position any second in the future that would make me very appreciative of my right to something/asylum. Therefore, the fact that there is such a right available to everyone shouldn't be taken away - lest we all regret it sometime in the future.

When it comes to recreational things, I hold the belief that: if it doesn't directly cause you to endanger others you should be able to do it. If I take the drug ice for example, a man recently went on a rampage around Brisbane and was running around beating people up in car parks (stomping on heads etc. etc.) and was finally stopped when he tried to break into an RSL club (full of elderly people and war veterans lol). Despite being of average build (for a white male), it took four beefy policemen to restrain him due to the crazy amount of 'latent' strength you somehow acquire by taking ice. Yes, gambling does have detrimental effects (financial etc.) on people (and their families) but I think it's up to that person to control themselves (or his family, if he/she needs it). Despite the advertisements and so called 'addictive' nature of gambling, there isn't a physical force that's making these people gamble. On the other hand, when that man took ice - a substance that actually messes with your head and physically endangers everyone around you, there shouldn't be any doubt as to whether it should be banned.

The government shouldn't have to nanny their people and say "You can't do this because there's a chance that you'd ruin yourself and your family." when it comes to things like gambling. With that logic, the government should be able to impose a ban on soft drink because it's the no.1 cause for obesity and (for some reason) it's the government's job to make sure people are healthy - instead of the actual people in question. My granddad likes to gamble on a weekly basis. Sometimes he wins sometimes he doesn't. What he does have is: the common sense to say "Okay, I've lost some and I'm only going to lose some more. Let's get out of here." or "Yay, I won some. Knowing that the casinos are scumbags, let's get out of here before I lose more than I gained." If someone has a problem with gambling, they need to get some help. They shouldn't ruin the fun for everyone else just because they don't have the mental fortitude/willpower to stop themselves.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Well, I'd be fairly certain you do draw a line about what should and shouldn't be a right. I doubt you believe I have the right to build and operate nuclear warheads for my own protection, or the right to torture an animal even if you have ownership of it. 

So in your view for clarification purposes I should be allowed kill myself, take heroin or similar things that would only directly cause harm to me?

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

That's a given. I thought we were talking about humanitarian rights, specifically the right to asylum. Also, civilians never had the right to use nuclear warheads in self defence anyway - I was making a point that drawing a line on which rights we should or shouldn't keep could be counter-productive (or downright dangerous) for our lives in the future.

Substance abuse is a tricky one, since I'm not well informed on the side effects/effects of taking things like heroin. Seeing that they alter one's perception of reality, they (presumably) do pose a threat to those around you (we wouldn't want to have someone on LSD driving around would we?). As to whether you can or can't kill yourself, I have no problem with euthanasia (in which you need the written consent of three doctors etc.). I don't think gambling addiction should be treated like a drug/substance addiction due to the reasons aforementioned, and the severity of actually gambling compared to recreational drug use is significantly lesser (note I'm not referring to the severity of gambling addiction, but the act of gambling itself). 

[EDIT]

Also, when it comes to whether or not we should do something since it only directly harms ourselves (like self-harm etc.), the effects of one's self-harm on his family's financial, physical and(or) mental state need to be considered. That is why euthanasia needs to have the consent of three doctors etc. etc. in order to actually occur. I forgot which country this was employed in (some European nation, probably Finland idk) but these checks and balances to this issue hasn't posed any problems (and have probably solved more). The point is, self-harm probably harms those near to you. Should forms of 'self-harm' such as substance abuse be banned? I think it depends upon the severity of said 'self-harm', and whether that activity typically causes large numbers of people to reach said severity. Whilst gambling is clearly a dangerous pastime to indulge in, unless the majority of people end up addicts it shouldn't be banned.

I don't think excessive (and irresponsible) gambling is a matter of self-harm, since the financial repercussions easily ruins the livelihoods of other people. Despite this, we still shouldn't be shutting down the gambling industry since it would negatively impact everyone, including these excessive gamblers (probably). It's not just the 'responsible' consumers that lose a form of recreation, the gambling industry is massive and many services, such as hotels (even entire cities) etc. rely on their casinos to pay employees, manage the exorbitant costs of accommodation (or the costs of whatever they're doing) etc. etc. Economics kick in and people lose their jobs, revenue is lost, and services are discontinued. And who's to say that the whole gambling scene won't go underground? If (and that's a very likely if) casinos or other outlets of gambling do go underground, gambling addicts (likely) wouldn't hesitate to satisfy themselves - so we've only condemned their livelihood as 'illegal' and aren't actually dealing with the issues at hand. Making sure the people are educated, and providing 'rehab' services for those that are truly hopeless, actually addresses the gambling addiction. Like the scary lung cancer pictures on cigarette packages, and the constant reminders from the government to "gamble safely", it doesn't take much to make the public aware about these issues. I think that, instead of shutting down the gambling industry - only to make matters worse, having these options open would be beneficial for everyone.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Alcohol can also cause a risk to other people as many are more violent if they drink. Would you like alcohol banned?

I'm confused as to your belief that there should be three doctors to authorize euthanasia. You said if it doesn't directly cause you to endanger others it's allowed, so surely if I, someone with nothing physical wrong, wants to kill themselves that should just be allowed? You say we need to consider the financial, mental and physical effect that would have on one's family, but this also seems contradictory to what you're saying, because it doesn't directly harm them and has no physical effect, so I don't why we should care for the financial and mental effect it might have on others.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Again, this comes back to the idea of responsibility being a simple solution to these problems. Not everyone is an angry drunk, and the majority aren't alcoholics. Therefore there isn't a need to ban alcohol because some people can't control themselves. A similar question would be 'should we ban soft drinks since it contributes the most to obesity, and conversely diabetes?' As I mentioned before, in order to ban something like alcohol or soft drink means that, as a people, we cannot control ourselves and thus it is the job of the government to monitor/manage our waistlines. In addition, banning alcohol would almost certainly drive liquor underground. So even if we did ban it to avoid possible alcohol-fuelled violence the alcoholics would still be able to (and have a greater incentive to) drink. Therefore we haven't solved anything and therefore alcohol shouldn't be banned. 

The misunderstanding here is a fault on my part for not making this clear enough. When is said that recreational activities such as gambling shouldn't be banned since they don't have the same physical ramifications of substance abuse, I wasn't saying that only activities which cause physical harm should be banned. I was making this point to justify why I don't treat the activity of gambling to be as severe of a 'form of self-harm' (per se) like substance abuse (ie. drugs). 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I understand that, but then why are you distinguishing heroin and cocaine and saying they're not allowed, but alcohol and soft-drinks are?

Ah, OK, makes more sense then.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Although indulging in any of these activities (or any activity really) to the point where you've developed a dependency on them is harmful, since drugs are normally 'manufactured' to get people addicted (or they just possess properties that are addicting) - they aren't a recreational activity that is as, for lack of a better word, 'disposable' as the activity of drinking soft-drink or alcohol. Therefore, after you've begun taking drugs, the notion of being 'responsible' has already flown out the window. Seeing that these drugs also pose a great threat to those around you (unless we're talking about marijuana, which is apparently okay or something I don't know), and alcohol doesn't make everyone instantly hulk out and start hallucinating things, there's an imperative to make sure they are banned (unlike alcohol or soft-drink).

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Alcohol and soft drinks and fast food and all that are also developed to be addictive. Plus, things like heroin sure don't make you freak out or harm people, nor do most downers.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I'm not sure about the levels of dopamine alcohol, soft drinks or fast food are supposed to create to get you addicted, and I'm not denying that they aren't made to be addictive. Clear thinking and a sense of responsibility, however, would likely kick in and 'negate' these urges.

With my limited knowledge of narcotics, I'm certain that there is some form of ranking that categorises which substances are most dangerous to which are least dangerous. Knowing this, I can definetely come to the conclusion that the big bads should be banned. When it comes to downers, I searched for why they are banned, because - as you said - they don't trigger a rampage or something of the like. What I discerned from the info was, downers - especially opioids/opiates - can cause severe withdrawal. Therefore, this could be a very real incentive for people who use these substances to resort to crime in order to secure a fix. Sedative-hypnotics also cause severe withdrawal, so the same applies. Interestingly, alcohol is considered a downer due to "its relaxing and inhibiting effect." It doesn't mention anything about severe withdrawal though (and I never experienced anything of the kind after drinking). Thus, I think alcoholics don't become alcoholics simply because alcohol is addicting, but they become alcoholics because of a myriad of problems (stress being an example of one). Just because they use alcohol as a means to 'forget' doesn't mean alcohol is addictive. I'm not an expert, but the only benefit of alcohol (for me) is it's ability to get people drunk. Alcoholics are probably addicted to 'forgetting', and not the actual beverage. So far, that's explained to me why downers such as heroin are prohibited, and not alcohol (or soft-drinks/fast food).

Here's the article in question: http://ssac.gmu.edu/alcohol-tobacco-and-other-drugs/uppers-downers-and-all-arounders/

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Alcoholics and seriously obese people show that it doesn't always kick in, while there are many people who take harder drugs and can be perfectly functional. 

People who have serious gambling problems run up big debts, and are also likely to resort to crime. 

You might've never suffered from alcohol withdrawal,but that's definitely a real thing. I would presume its just because you've never build up a reliance on it. I've never went into coke or yoke withdrawal, but I've taken them in moderation. Alcoholics are definitely not addicted to the forgetting, alcohol addiction is a real and serious thing, and alcohol is a drug like any other in that regard, although obviously closer to the less severe side.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

The key idea is that gambling, alcohol, soft-drink and junk food, are addicting when someone doesn't have the self-control to stop themselves from indulging in that activity - to the point of developing a reliance. Since this is all on the "less severe side", there's plenty of opportunities for people to take their health into their own hands. Drugs on the other hand typically causes severe withdrawal after consumption. Sure, some people take hard drugs and don't break down into raving lunatics - but it's clear that the majority do (which is why the police over here are at a war on ice, since it's become widespread and is making people go berserk). I've never been an alcoholic, nor have I ever read extensively into the psychological or physiological dependencies alcoholics develop due to alcohol (and whether or not they rely on alcohol as a coping mechanism for other problems in their life). I find the fact that someone needs to develop a reliance on alcohol in the first place is an indication that they're taking alcohol due to an external force (such as peer pressure or anxiety). I don't think alcohol directly causes withdrawal symptoms since A. I've never heard of such a thing, and B. I've never experienced withdrawal symptoms after a rough party (in fact, I end up wishing I didn't drink so much in the first place). 

Back to the gambling thing, of course people who have serious gambling debts could resort to crime. So can people who have big debts which aren't caused by gambling. Should we ban gambling since there's a chance that some poor sucker can't handle money responsibly and may resort to crime? The difference between people resorting to crime over drugs and people resorting to crime over gambling debts is: drugs directly cause withdrawal symptoms that provides a strong incentive for people to resort to crime since it directly creates a psychological and physiological dependency on the substance. Therefore, people can be exploited by suppliers to commit crimes, resort to crime to fund their addiction etc. etc. Gambling doesn't create anywhere near as strong a psychological impact on consumers and it definitely doesn't take over the physiological side of things. If it did, then almost everyone who gambled just once would need to attend rehab and the act of gambling would be legally considered to be something like a 'narcotic activity'. Therefore, due to the aforementioned reasons there is a significantly greater number of opportunities for people to get a grip of themselves before they empty their pockets at the casino. Thus, it shouldn't be outright banned - like narcotics.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Also, as a side note, I've never taken any sort of 'hard' drug before so I can't testify on how severe a withdrawal I get. Knowing that it messes with your perception of reality (to varying extents) is already a turn-off for me, since I find any sort of impediment on my sense (or control of my senses) to be very agitating and the perceived benefits don't outweigh the potential detriments.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Withdrawal only comes from extended use, which is a result of addiction.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I feel you don't have a full grasp on drugs here. Many people take drugs occasionally but stop themselves from having to do it regularly. I don't now the exact statistics, but just from personal experience, the vast majority of people my age do, and don't become addicts. Sure, alcoholism is usually accompanied by other issues, but so is drug addiction. There's really not this big difference in drugs and alcohol that you're perceiving here. Alcohol is a drug. Sure, culturally it's more acceptable, but that's neither here nor there because that doesn't change its effects.

Gambling addicts also build up a psychological dependency on gambling. Gambling addicts are easily exploited by those who "supply" for lack of a better word, their gambling. You seem to have this very misguided view of drugs where you believe that the addiction people have to drugs is different to more culturally acceptable things like alcohol, when really there isn't. You seem to over-exaggerate how addictive drugs are while downplaying how serious gambling addiction is. Sure, the majority of people who gambling don't get addicted, but neither do the majority of people who buy drugs. It's less than a quarter that do get addicted, and that's for the hard stuff like meth and heroin, to my knowledge.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

 The distinction between drugs and alcohol is the fact that there is a physiological impact that directly causes a psychological dependency for drugs. I'm saying that people only develop dependencies on alcohol through repeated use. You yourself said that alcohol is "on the lesser side" of severity - since we both know that, unlike narcotics, alcohol doesn't cause an addiction that is as 'captivating'. Even if the people you know can handle downers, the fact that they're illegal in the first place - and are recorded to typically cause severe withdrawal - indicate that they do trigger these effects. I think we can both agree that alcohol doesn't cause severe withdrawals due to its physiological effects. (Also, think about what drug you're using. That may explain why the people you know can 'put down' the drug.) Since we don't have statistics, I can't determine if soft drugs are so soft, and aren't prone to cause severe withdrawal. From what I know, however, the mere consumption of alcohol doesn't cause said withdrawals. It's repeated alcohol consumption - substance abuse - that creates alcoholics. I know that a gambling addiction is serious, but unless you can prove that the act of gambling causes severe withdrawal due to a chemical change in the body that's more than a squirt of dopamine, I'll maintain the stance that gambling isn't comparable to drug use - and therefore has no reason to be banned. The key idea here is: narcotics (excluding alcohol) has a chemical effect on the body that causes withdrawal. Alcohol doesn't, it is considered a downer since it has the effects of relaxation - but it doesn't have the aforementioned chemical effect. It's up to the person to become an alcoholic. It's also up to the person to become a gambling addict. Again, neither of us has any substantive on which downers typically cause severe withdrawals, or if they can cause people to harm others due to its effects. If you can explain that the chemical changes in any narcotic (hard, soft) are similar to the dopamine produced by alcohol consumption and gambling, I'll be able to consider comparing gambling to drug use - and then there may be an incentive to ban it other than 'some people become addicts because they can't control themselves.'

 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

People pretty much only develop drug dependencies through repeated use. Alcohol's on the lesser side, but I'd say weed and ecstasy aren't as bad as it. Alcohol does have worse withdrawal symptoms than at least those to, and the fact that some drugs are illegal is fairly irrelevant since the law doesn't dictate the best course of action. As I've already explained, the mere consumption of most drugs doesn't cause immediate withdrawals. It's substance abuse of all them that causes drug addiction, as has already been shown seeing as the vast majority of people doesn't get addicted.

Again, alcohol, ecstasy and coke for instance all don't have immediate withdrawal systems and don't tend to be anymore addictive than alcohol. 15% of people who try alcohol become dependent. It's 17% for cocaine.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

So it's a matter of people rather than substance then. In that case, and I'm trusting what you've said, all we need to do is ban the 'hard' drugs then (or any drug that doesn't cause severe withdrawal). That means it's not the activity of gambling that's the problem - but it's the 'irresponsible gambler' that's the problem. Refer to that earlier post where I explained why banning gambling causes more harm for everyone else (and is likely to only worsen the problem for gambling addicts). I'm on the commute right now so I can't really go searching around, but I think it would be interesting to check out places where they've banned gambling and places where they've legalised some downer drugs - and see how wel they're doing on this issue.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

@bucky

Blatantly declaring our hatred for Muslims surely will attract new members to the site, right?

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Why are you calling Bucky out? He hasn’t even posted in this thread and Steve’s the one who said he didn’t like Muslims.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

When I ironically had "hide your toothbrush whities" on my profile, bucky called me racist because of it and that it would lead to people not wanting to join the community.

Being such a champion of social justice surely the same logic must apply to this thread.

Honestly I don't care about steve's opinions because I already know he's a reactionary, I'm just curious as to why a double standard is being upholded by bucky.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
Bucky, the site's leading champion of social justice.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I did clarify it's more accurate to say "I don't like Islam", while also saying there's many Muslims I care for.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
Your reading comprehension level leaves something to be desired, but thanks again for highlighting your illiteracy. It'd be a shame if someone mistook you for anything less than a blathering imbecile.

You're mistaking my disgust for people who blow themselves up in order to kill random passerbys with your own libelous conjuration.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

>thanks again for highlighting your illiteracy

What was the first incident in which I highlighted my illiteracy? Just curious.

>libelous

That's rather ironic.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
Oh and I've only been semi-skimming this thread because frankly Steve's desperate grasping for attention could use a rest, but fwiw I'm very pro Israel. For all the whining people like to do, it's a democratic country where Arab women have the right to vote and drive and be considered human and all that, very progressive stuff, and they're doing a hell of a lot better with gay and minority rights etc., than any of their neighbors.

I don't really give a shit whether it's fair for them to be there or not and I don't see why it should matter until the rest of the Middle East is ready to stop fucking goats and at least make a token attempt to get on board with this whole human rights thing.

Also Jews are cool people who have been oppressed and shit on way harder than any other group in history (and never dealt with it by flying planes into buildings or blowing up kids at concerts) so maybe we should let them have this one nice thing.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

I have no empathy for the attacks that happen on Israel, if they want to settle there and take up most of the land then let them deal with the consequences.   Then again I have little empathy for the Palestine people that are attacking the area and borders but then again they have the better reason to do so. The whole area just becomes a grey "let's see what happens." The finanical aid we give them also seems a bad move, just leave them to rely on themselves.

I wished that the soviets would have intervened with its full military power during the six day war, either by fully eliminating or shrinking the borders of Israel severely. I just feel something bad is going to happen in that part of the world in the near future, with heavy involvement from Israel,

How should Steve think?

6 years ago
In your opinion, at which point does it get considered their land, regardless of how they got it? It's been fifty years since '66, multiple generations have been born there in that time.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

We should support Israel out of pragmatism. They're one of the few states in the Middle East that don't hate us, and if we support the Saudis, leaders of one of the most oppressive states in the world, why is it so bad to support Israel? 

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

What do you mean the Saudis are oppressive!? Everyone loves it in Saudi Arabia! Not a single person who still exists today has complained about it!

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

1. Israel has a lot of blue on their flag. After years of playing total war with my favorite-colored factions, I personally opt for the bluest side of any violent conflict that I can't be ared to lean more about. Shallow, I know, but hey, if you have to choose between two angry religions you don't believe in, there's not exactly a lot to go on here. 

2. See, what Ireland needs is EXTREME VETTING. That way, only the non-assholes get in. But you'll probably be fine if you don't pull some shit like France and give them their own cordoned-off arenas where the police can't get in. Ireland's police are its greatest terrorist-stopping resource! Probably because all Irish people are police, and all the police are Irish.

3. Honestly if you support legalizing drugs, it's kind of hypocritical to just illegalize gambling just because it fucks some people. Pepole shold be abe to spend their mone recreationally on whatever they please as long as it doesn't fuck anyone else over. Yeah, it's a retarded, manipulative ploy, but so are most big-name mobile and triple-a games. But like them or not, they still keep a lot of people employed, and with or without addiction, it's still a voluntary act.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

The Gardai don't have guns. One Muslim lad with a knife could probably enforce sharia law here.

How should Steve think?

6 years ago

Oh come on, you guys should at least have fireworks or shillelaghs or something? A few layers of heavily starched cloth should be able to protect you from a weedy, malnourished refugee coming out of a war-torn theocracy anyway. No telling how much cloth they'll get through once they start eating food, but that's where the fireworks and shillelaghs get involved.