| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2006 08:38:46 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
How about you look back and see who started the insults. |
Hey, David, Did you read the thread that was linked to? I'll quote it here:
"Fundamentals
"Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along is a special case of it. Although nobody is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick, it is still a bad idea to be one.
No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. Note also that being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick. Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks.
Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. It is also an assumption of bad faith to cite this policy when Don't be dense is sufficient (See that page for advice on citing it).
Why is it a bad thing?
Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood of whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) reaching the ears of your intended audience dramatically diminishes. Why? Simple: no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how correct or in the right they are, and dicks often offend their listeners.
Remedies
If you've been labeled as a dick, or if you suspect that you may be one, there is hope. The first step is to realize that you are being a dick. Ask yourself what is causing you to be one. Change your behavior and your mode of presentation. If needed, apologize to anyone who you may have been a dick to. It's okay! People will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect."
Note my emphasis, while many of us KNOW that Erick can be a dick sometimes, he's generally not one. If I tell Erick, "Dont be a dick." He would check himself.
Please check yourself. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 03:32:29 PM · #2 |
| How about you look back and see who started the insults. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 10:32:23 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Taking photos out of the box seems well recieved here.....why isn't spelling, dick? |
I am sure that you can do better than resorting to insults to make a point. If not, maybe you don't have a point - resorting to insults confirms it more quickly than silence would have done.
In any case, please respect the forum rules and play nicely.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 10:01:41 AM · #4 |
Taking photos out of the box seems well recieved here.....why isn't spelling, dick?
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by David Ey:
You prove my point exactly by infering I think you insane. Now you may go back to playing with your little wazoo.
|
First it is "inferring" 2 r's and You "Imply" I "Infer".
Don't be a dick ... :-P
The Thread! |
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 08:37:13 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by David Ey:
50 Billion Dollars ! ???
That quite a bit of money from tax on one item. Where did you get this figure? |
Well, that was quite a while ago that I came up with the figure. But if I posted it, it must be at least somewhat accurate.
I'm guessing here, but ... |
Here are the 2003 figures for the US:
//www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=403&Topic2id=90
USD 11.477 billion.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 08:03:29 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
50 Billion Dollars ! ???
That quite a bit of money from tax on one item. Where did you get this figure? |
Well, that was quite a while ago that I came up with the figure. But if I posted it, it must be at least somewhat accurate.
I'm guessing here, but assuming that the government only makes a dollar per pack of smokes, which it's probably more like 2 dollars or so being that the price of cigarettes just went up about a dollar a pack not too long ago because of a tax raise, the entire tobacco industry would only have to sell 50 billion packs to arrive at that figure. Like I said, being that it's probably closer to 2 dollars a pack, it's more like selling 25 billion packs of cigarettes a year, it definately sounds believable to me.
Like I said though, some resurrected this topic from the dead so I can't remember exactly how I arrived at those numbers. I assure you, however, I don't normally make a habit of making stuff up for no good reason at all.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:36:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Healthy???
Is that how you describe a society that criminalizes illness?
I think you get an F. So does the government. |
The reason for your little spat is the logical leap you make here without explanation that you consider drug users to be suffering from an illness.
I think that you are possibly also confusing "healthy" as regards individual personal health, with "healthy" as it is applied to all aspects of society. Part of the government's purpose is to keep or improve the health of society, and part of that requires healthy citizens (unhealthy citizens are unproductive and a burden on a healthy society). |
Addiction is an illness, it's not just my personal opinion. I'm sure that there are some troglodytes out there that have other views about it, but I believe the medical community is largely in agreement about that fact.
I also believe that as a society, we cannot consider our society "healthy" if our society criminalizes those that are ill rather than helping them.
The ill (addicts and otherwise) may be a burden on society, but so what? Does a "healthy" society punish and ostracize those that are ill? Our society wouldn't lock up a diabetes patient and deny them treatment, simply for being ill. Maybe they made poor choices in diet, exercise and other habits that led them to develop the disease. Why do we tolerate doing that exact same thing to people with addictions who made poor choices? |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:02:44 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Healthy???
Is that how you describe a society that criminalizes illness?
I think you get an F. So does the government. |
The reason for your little spat is the logical leap you make here without explanation that you consider drug users to be suffering from an illness.
I think that you are possibly also confusing "healthy" as regards individual personal health, with "healthy" as it is applied to all aspects of society. Part of the government's purpose is to keep or improve the health of society, and part of that requires healthy citizens (unhealthy citizens are unproductive and a burden on a healthy society).
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:33:06 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You prove my point exactly by infering I think you insane. Now you may go back to playing with your little wazoo.
|
First it is "inferring" 2 r's and You "Imply" I "Infer".
Don't be a dick ... :-P
The Thread!
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 23:37:44. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:11:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
If you have some personal grudge about the jailing of people who claim mental illness as the reason for committing a crime, then good for you. It is completely irrelevant to anything I have said. |
Drug addiction is widely regarded as an illness, yet it is criminalized, leading to incarceration rather than treatment. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. Perhaps someone with more patience can take your hand and explain it to you as if you were a two year old, but I'll let you arrange that.
I don't know if you post things out of ignorance or an apalling lack of caompassion, but in any case, it's you who fails to recognize the relevance.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:02:59 PM · #11 |
| If you have some personal grudge about the jailing of people who claim mental illness as the reason for committing a crime, then good for you. It is completely irrelevant to anything I have said. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 10:04:46 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Healthy???
Is that how you describe a society that criminalizes illness?
I think you get an F. So does the government. |
Could have managed to read one more lousy sentence you would have had your answer:
"How much restriction, what sort of society - different discussions altogether." |
I read it, but it is not an answer.
If, (as you suggest, but I don't agree) the purpose of governmental restrictions on personal freedom is to maintain the health of the society, then the government has still failed, as it criminalizes illnesses in the pursuit of imposing a false morality on others. So, it takes those who are ill and "treats" them by locking them away rather than actually trying to help.
The government doesn't deserve an "F", they deserve an "F-" |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:25:41 PM · #13 |
Well they took care of part of that didn't they. I'm supprised you played the race card general.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
please check your facts on John DeLorean. there was no conviction |
... and he was a rich white guy -- what a "coincidence" ... |
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:22:20 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Healthy???
Is that how you describe a society that criminalizes illness?
I think you get an F. So does the government. |
Could have managed to read one more lousy sentence you would have had your answer:
"How much restriction, what sort of society - different discussions altogether." |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:21:13 PM · #15 |
You prove my point exactly by infering I think you insane. Now you may go back to playing with your little wazoo.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by David Ey:
What would any sane person think he meant by 'enticed into taking advantage of'? |
Um so to you there is no difference between these words.
Entice: to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire : TEMPT
Convict: 1. to find or prove to be guilty 2. to convince of error or sinfulness
Am I to infer you think I am insane because of my understanding of English? |
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 08:38:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
What is the purpose of government, in your opinion? |
To protect individual freedom. |
Exactly!!
It's certainly not to impose some government constructed morality over a citizen's personal morality. |
You both get an F. The purpose of government is to restrict individual freedoms to the extent necessary to promote a healthy society. |
Healthy???
Is that how you describe a society that criminalizes illness?
I think you get an F. So does the government. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 06:34:06 PM · #17 |
You guys have stressed me out now.... sheesh, I need a smoke.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 06:01:15 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
please check your facts on John DeLorean. there was no conviction |
... and he was a rich white guy -- what a "coincidence" ... |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 05:56:58 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
What is the purpose of government, in your opinion? |
To protect individual freedom. |
Exactly!!
It's certainly not to impose some government constructed morality over a citizen's personal morality. |
You both get an F. The purpose of government is to restrict individual freedoms to the extent necessary to promote a healthy society. How much restriction, what sort of society - different discussions altogether. But every form of government is a restriction on personal freedoms through the creation and enforcement of laws.
Democracy - everyone can more or less do what they want, so long as what they want is acceptable to a majority
Facism - everyone can do what they want so long as it is in the state's best interest
Totalitarianism - feel free to do what you want, but we are watching and will slam the boot down on your face if what you want to do isn't what we want you to do
etc, etc |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 05:08:34 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
What would any sane person think he meant by 'enticed into taking advantage of'? |
Um so to you there is no difference between these words.
Entice: to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire : TEMPT
Convict: 1. to find or prove to be guilty 2. to convince of error or sinfulness
Am I to infer you think I am insane because of my understanding of English? |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 05:08:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
What is the purpose of government, in your opinion? |
To protect individual freedom. |
Exactly!!
It's certainly not to impose some government constructed morality over a citizen's personal morality. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 04:59:03 PM · #22 |
| What would any sane person think he meant by 'enticed into taking advantage of'? |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 03:34:08 PM · #23 |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 03:27:31 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol* |
Isn't this the likely outcome of the legalisation scenario you propose? |
No, they're so expensive solely because of the restricted market and enhanced risk associated with their illegal status.
Pharmaceutical cocaine from Merck -- when I priced it in the late 1970s -- was something like $100 for a 1 ounce (not gram) bottle. The street price for an ounce of street-grade powder cocaine at the time was about $2,500. That was a profit-making opportunity which even savvy business executives such as John DeLorean were enticed into taking advantage of. |
please check your facts on John DeLorean. there was no conviction |
Where did he say "Conviction"? I only see "enticed".
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 15:28:52. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 02:58:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I have actually "legally" purchased cocaine, heroine and methylaphetamine (for scientific/industrial uses). It cost several hundred dollars for a few grams. Ironically, I could have bought the same materials illegally down the street and gotten a lot more for our buck. *lol* |
Isn't this the likely outcome of the legalisation scenario you propose? |
No, they're so expensive solely because of the restricted market and enhanced risk associated with their illegal status.
Pharmaceutical cocaine from Merck -- when I priced it in the late 1970s -- was something like $100 for a 1 ounce (not gram) bottle. The street price for an ounce of street-grade powder cocaine at the time was about $2,500. That was a profit-making opportunity which even savvy business executives such as John DeLorean were enticed into taking advantage of. |
please check your facts on John DeLorean. there was no conviction |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 08:03:23 AM EDT.
