Dangerous Changes

[Kyng's Old Account]

I was discussing this with Yin - is society accepting more diverse and different things particularly a good thing?

 

For example, homosexuality was at a time illegal, shunned, and seen as nothing beyond taboo - something not welcomed by society. Nowadays, we see it as a generally accepted thing in the west. In fact I've heard a fair number of people claiming homosexuality is cooler than heterosexuality because of its exotic nature.

 

Imagine if things such as paedophilia or drug use had the same treatment?

 

I'm not saying we're so stupid to see that there are some absolute "no"s, and I'm not suggesting we're going to accept every disgusting thing out there - but if we saw a harmless thing such as homosexuality as unacceptable which then became more acceptable, who's to say other things that we see now as unacceptable wouldn't become an accepted practise in the distant future?

 

Anyhoo, discuss this.

[Sander]

That's because homosexuality, more often than not does not scar the people in a way that paedophilia may, get you addicted to drugs. So no, paedophilia cannot and will not be accepted, as it actually hurts people, while homosexuality doesn't.

[Northern Sage]

Taboos and norms change with the ideals and ways of rule in a society. For example, the general acceptance of homosexuality or the illegalization of pedophilia generally exist due to a focus on human rights, at least in some regards. 

[:^)]

One day people will live in a world where they think that we're all idiots for not accepting homosexuality in every country.

 

We live in a world where we think that everyone were idiots for having black slaves and thinking it was okay.

[Aix]

While we now accept stuff like homosexuality which people didn't in the past, we also no longer accept stuff like execution (in some countries), war rape and torture.

 

If drugs did not damage your health, would it be legal or accepted?

[Sander]

While we now accept stuff like homosexuality which people didn't in the past, we also no longer accept stuff like execution (in some countries), war rape and torture.

 

If drugs did not damage your health, would it be legal or accepted?

 

Drugs would be accepted even if they did damage your health. Cigarettes and alcohol are still accepted, and you know what they do to the human health. The problem with drugs is that they get you addicted. If addiction didn't happen, they wouldn't be so looked down upon / be illegal.

[Aix]

Drugs would be accepted even if they did damage your health. Cigarettes and alcohol are still accepted, and you know what they do to the human health. The problem with drugs is that they get you addicted. If addiction didn't happen, they wouldn't be so looked down upon / be illegal.

You cannot tell me that cigarettes are not addictive.

[Sander]

You cannot tell me that cigarettes are not addictive.

 

Where in gods name, in my post, did you even read me saying "cigarettes aren't addictive"?

[Aix]

Where in gods name, in my post, did you even read me saying "cigarettes aren't addictive"?

Cigarettes are still accepted.

If addiction didn't happen, they wouldn't be so looked down upon / be illegal.

[Sander]

Cigarettes are still accepted.

 

They are accepted, though. So is alcohol. If they weren't, they wouldn't be fucking legal.

 

If addiction didn't happen, they wouldn't be so looked down upon / be illegal.

 

God damn it, is it so hard to understand what I meant? "If addiction didn't happen" means if you didn't get fucking addicted to shit like alcohol / tobacco / fucking any hard drug in existence, then they wouldn't be looked down upon or be illegal for use.

 

Again, I didn't say anything about cigarettes not begin addictive. This is just you not having the capacity to understand what I meant.

[Legend Zero]

If you can't explain without swearing then don't post, mkay?

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Depending how things go I can see "everything" being acceptable in the distant future. Both good and bad.

[Sander]

If you can't explain without swearing then don't post, mkay?

 

If I feel like swearing is needed to get a point across, then I have the right to do so.

[Miror B]

If I feel like swearing is needed to get a point across, then I have the right to do so.

It wasn't needed though. A simple explanation is all that's needed.

Also this isn't america. This is a forum. As far as mods are concerned, you have the rights they give you.

 

 

In the drug area, I never did find out why stuff like Marijuana was illegal but Tobacco isn't, since both damage you in some way :/

[.Rai]

In the drug area, I never did find out why stuff like Marijuana was illegal but Tobacco isn't, since both damage you in some way :/

The tobacco industry and its connections generate huge amounts of money. It would be an inconvenience for the USA at least to outlaw it. It's also somewhat the result of a pseudo-grandfather clause. The USA has learnt to accept it as trying to prohibit it is virtually impossible: the industry is far too large to attempt destroying it.

[Admiral Tim]

They are accepted, though. So is alcohol. If they weren't, they wouldn't be fucking legal.

 

 

God damn it, is it so hard to understand what I meant? "If addiction didn't happen" means if you didn't get fucking addicted to shit like alcohol / tobacco / fucking any hard drug in existence, then they wouldn't be looked down upon or be illegal for use.

 

Again, I didn't say anything about cigarettes not begin addictive. This is just you not having the capacity to understand what I meant.

 

I'm sorry but you just sounded like a drunk addict suffering from withdrawal.  Honestly drug use has been looked upon even in the last 30 years.  The 80's were full of crack everywhere.  Now It's a big no-no yet marijuana is becoming more and more accepted.  To the point where, here in Canada a presidential candidate can smoke pot and get away with it.  I think It's more of an immediate threat to health that makes drugs illegal.  For example cigarettes are highly addictive and terrible for your lungs.  So yes you can get lung cancer but you can't overdose as you can with heroin or other hard drugs.  Alcohol however can potentially kill someone young or with a weak liver.  However alcohol has a huge history throughout human society.  They tried to ban it before but it was nearly impossible.  Banning drugs has less to do about addiction (As nicotine is waaaaaaaay more addictive than say weed) but more about immediate health confers as OD'ing.  

[Tentacruel]

It goes both ways.

 

Things that used to be accepted as harmless now scare people. 

[Admiral Tim]

The tobacco industry and its connections generate huge amounts of money. It would be an inconvenience for the USA at least to outlaw it. It's also somewhat the result of a pseudo-grandfather clause. The USA has learnt to accept it as trying to prohibit it is virtually impossible: the industry is far too large to attempt destroying it.

 

Also the government gets a large sum of tax money from all the tobacco companies.  It's in their best interest to keep them alive.  

[Sander]

I'm sorry but you just sounded like a drunk addict suffering from withdrawal.  

 

Yet another person who couldn't understand what I was saying.

 

Honestly drug use has been looked upon even in the last 30 years.  The 80's were full of crack everywhere.  Now It's a big no-no yet marijuana is becoming more and more accepted.  To the point where, here in Canada a presidential candidate can smoke pot and get away with it.  I think It's more of an immediate threat to health that makes drugs illegal.

 

The only reason why drugs are illegal is the fact that drugs create addictions, thus people who get addicted are willing to do anything to get their next dose of their choice of drug (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine etc. etc.) Sure, they destroy your health in the process, but so do cigarettes / alcohol. No, if it were solely about health, then cigarettes / alcohol would be illegal as well.

 

Banning drugs has less to do about addiction (As nicotine is waaaaaaaay more addictive than say weed) but more about immediate health confers as OD'ing. 

 

Again, the reason why drugs are illegal is the fact that people get addicted to them and then do anything to get enough money for their next hit, even murder if need be. If it were only because the chance of overdosing, then even the simplest over the counter medication should be illegal as well, because you can overdose on them. No, it isn't because people can overdose on them but because they get addicted and at some point may overdose. Connect the dots; overdosing is just a side-effect of addiction, thus the main reason why drugs are illegal is because people get addicted to them.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

No, gay rights are not "dangerous changes". No, homosexuality is not equatable with pedophilia.

[Admiral Tim]

Yet another person who couldn't understand what I was saying.

 

 

The only reason why drugs are illegal is the fact that drugs create addictions, thus people who get addicted are willing to do anything to get their next dose of their choice of drug (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine etc. etc.) Sure, they destroy your health in the process, but so do cigarettes / alcohol. No, if it were solely about health, then cigarettes / alcohol would be illegal as well.

 

 

Again, the reason why drugs are illegal is the fact that people get addicted to them and then do anything to get enough money for their next hit, even murder if need be. If it were only because the chance of overdosing, then even the simplest over the counter medication should be illegal as well, because you can overdose on them. No, it isn't because people can overdose on them but because they get addicted and at some point may overdose. Connect the dots; overdosing is just a side-effect of addiction, thus the main reason why drugs are illegal is because people get addicted to them.

 

My grandparents ran a convenience store for many years.  They were robbed twice by an armed robber.  Now Mind you this is in Canada where fire-arms are more or less illegal (minus hunting guns).  The guys held up the store for guess what....cigarettes.  So if your theory really is correct, why are cigarettes legal?  If your desperate enough to hold two people at gun point for a couple smokes whats to stop you killing someone in a back-alley for his pack?  You propose that drugs are illegal not because of addiction but because of a side-effect of addiction, lapse of judgment caused by a thirst for drugs, causing actions that harm specifically-others.  I know people that have mugged old handicapped men for some weed.  Marijuana is becoming more and more legal.  So lets name this side effect "ACBD" aggression caused by drugs.  Yes drugs can dull your judgment but it comes down to who you are to determine what actions you take.  A mild shy stoner might never act in aggression.  A testosterone filled psycho might.  They have down studies to show drugs only cause aggressive side effects if you already have underlying aggressive tendencies with a few minor exceptions.  The handful of cases where people act in extreme violence are usually simply cases where the drugs only enhance their already violent nature. 

[Tourmaline]

My grandparents ran a convenience store for many years. They were robbed twice by an armed robber. Now Mind you this is in Canada where fire-arms are more or less illegal (minus hunting guns). The guys held up the store for guess what....money. So if your theory really is correct, why is money legal? If your desperate enough to hold two people at gun point for some money whats to stop you killing someone in a back-alley for his wallet? You propose that drugs are illegal not because of addiction but because of a side-effect of addiction, lapse of judgment caused by a thirst for drugs, causing actions that harm specifically-others. I know people that have mugged old handicapped men for some money. Money has always been legal. So lets name this side effect "ACBD" aggression caused by desire for money. Yes drugs can dull your judgment but it comes down to who you are to determine what actions you take. A mild shy stoner might never act in aggression. A testosterone filled psycho might. They have down studies to show drugs only cause aggressive side effects if you already have underlying aggressive tendencies with a few minor exceptions. The handful of cases where people act in extreme violence are usually simply cases where the drugs only enhance their already violent nature.

So basically, ban everything that can ignite desire.

[Kyng's Old Account]

No, gay rights are not "dangerous changes". No, homosexuality is not equatable with pedophilia.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Homosexuality, while effectively harmless, was looked in a similar light, if not worse light once as paedophilia (bearing in mind some countries marry children under-aged (just an assumption)), and it had a shift in outlook.

[Sander]

My grandparents ran a convenience store for many years.  They were robbed twice by an armed robber.  Now Mind you this is in Canada where fire-arms are more or less illegal (minus hunting guns).  The guys held up the store for guess what....cigarettes.  So if your theory really is correct, why are cigarettes legal?  If your desperate enough to hold two people at gun point for a couple smokes whats to stop you killing someone in a back-alley for his pack?

 

If you can't understand why cigarettes are legal, then you are literally too stupid to discuss anything with. Also, you just proved my theory to be correct. This guy was desperate enough to because he clearly had no money to purchase (or was just plain old greedy and didn't want to pay) and had the addiction that made him want to hold 2 people at gun point for cigarettes.

 

You propose that drugs are illegal not because of addiction but because of a side-effect of addiction, lapse of judgment caused by a thirst for drugs, causing actions that harm specifically-others.

 

I suggest you to actually reread a post carefully before you actually respond to someone. You know, so you could actually comprehend what the toerh person is saying. What I said is what I said, which is that drugs are illegal BECAUSE they create addictions, which leads people to do criminal activities to get more of said drug into their system. If that's not clear enough for you to understand, then I'll make it even easier for your simple mind: Person gets addicted to crack cocaine => Doesn't have enough money to afford to buy more => Steals money from someone => Gets more crack cocaine => Needs more money, steals some more etc. etc.

 

So lets name this side effect "ACBD" aggression caused by drugs.  Yes drugs can dull your judgment but it comes down to who you are to determine what actions you take.  A mild shy stoner might never act in aggression.  A testosterone filled psycho might.  They have down studies to show drugs only cause aggressive side effects if you already have underlying aggressive tendencies with a few minor exceptions.  The handful of cases where people act in extreme violence are usually simply cases where the drugs only enhance their already violent nature. 

 

And your point is? You can't compare a "mild shy stoner" to a "testosterone filled psycho" when it comes down to it, as we do not know what kind of drug this "testosterone filled psycho" is using, since people generally do not actually get aggressive under the influence of weed.

 

Really, what was your point about anyways? All you did was prove me correct, even with this "study". Drugs are illegal because addicts with or without violent natures will do anything for their next hit, even if it means that they have to either steal / harm / kill other people. All that damage done by the addicts was started by one thing, which I've already stated countless times; addiction.

 

Also, paragraphs; learn to use them.

[Rapidfire]

Okay, there is a fine line between homosexuality and pedophilia. 
Who I love shouldn't be considered a taboo. Maybe we should start banning heterosexual marriage now too. You really can't compare this sort of subject with something like rape and pedophilia. Homosexuals don't just get up an leave when their partner hits puberty. No pedos only go after children who have not hit puberty for sexual and or a intimate relationship. They don't actually love this kid, they just use them. 

 

So in my opinion you're stepping on people toes by using such a comparison.