|
On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me.
Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting.
|
On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me.
You are really good at avoiding points. As expected from a troll.
|
On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting.
I will avoid posting here from this point but it is simply because I don't have enough time and it is getting very boring.
|
On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
I totally agree. This guy should not have to take responsibility for the possibility of other people killing themselves with these drugs.
|
|
|
On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it.
Giving the death sentence/capital punishment is one of the major ways China, a country with massive population can do to deter people from committing crimes. Keeping them in prison for life would probably be the much more expensive alternative. Just my 3 cents
|
On January 04 2010 12:18 chongu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it. Giving the death sentence/capital punishment is one of the major ways China, a country with massive population can do to deter people from committing crimes. Keeping them in prison for life would probably be the much more expensive alternative. Just my 3 cents
Death penalty has never acted as a better deterrant than life in prison.
If StorkHwaiting is to be believed, Life in Prison in China is a much harsher and less enviable punishment. :o
|
On January 04 2010 13:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 12:18 chongu wrote:On December 31 2009 14:49 Whiplash wrote:
It's China, what do you expect? They don't operate like the rest of the world and they can get away with it so they do it. Giving the death sentence/capital punishment is one of the major ways China, a country with massive population can do to deter people from committing crimes. Keeping them in prison for life would probably be the much more expensive alternative. Just my 3 cents Death penalty has never acted as a better deterrant than life in prison. If StorkHwaiting is to be believed, Life in Prison in China is a much harsher and less enviable punishment. :o
Lol jail in China isn't like jail in the USA. They don't put you in a cell and leave you alone, give you cable TV, and a hot tray of food. They put you in a tiny piece of shit with a pot to piss in, routinely come in and beat the shit out of you, take you out for shock therapy, etc. If your fam visits and gives you anything to make your stay more comfortable, most likely the guards will come in, beat the shit out of you, and take it for themselves.
At least this is what I've heard from the few people who have been in a Chinese jail. Then again, they're probably biased and not going to say anything nice about their experiences. Although, it's the rare person who says anything nice about jail time.
Most of the stuff I've heard from Americans who've been to jail is about the incessant boredom, the constant male nudity, and the mild amounts of homo crap that goes on. (It's not constant buttfking rape like people say, but it does happen. Usually only to very weak personalities or people who are already into that sort of thing).
|
HhahAhaha
China
British
Drug
or rather
British brings drug to China
doesn't really go well lol
Britain: Bringing drugz to China since 1750
|
On January 04 2010 05:57 waxypants wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
I totally agree. This guy should not have to take responsibility for the possibility of other people killing themselves with these drugs.
to some degree I wish the same is true in U.S. so I can walk out and buy some weed free
|
On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting.
and you sir, are shallow and pedantic.
|
On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
+ Show Spoiler +THE MAN WAS INSANE. HE WAS ILL IN THE HEAD. HE COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. HE WAS A CUCKOO, A NUT JOB. CHINA JUST MURDERED A CONFUSED LITTLE BIRD.
Damn it felt good writing all that out in caps.
China's sick laws to themselves*, but that man could not be held responsible for his own actions and thus China should have been open to a bilateral solution based on discussions with the UK. That's the crux of this whole case, not whatever the other guy did: China was a dick to a guy who didn't have his brain right, UK will never say sorry to China for China being a dick (they never do to anyone, even non-dicks), and now we might have a general problem with the relations between these two countries.
*(although ideally the entire world would have laws that respect human beings, and no that's not a "damn communists" thing)
|
Has anyone ever seen that documentary "Ganja Queen" ? Its very informative on how some of these things can fall onto innocent people, not saying he's innocent...just saying, its out there.
|
On January 04 2010 23:16 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 05:42 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:36 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote:On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote:On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote:
You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name.
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best.
As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money.
...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. Your complaints are puerile and extraneous. If you can't actually hold a discussion, kindly refrain from posting. and you sir, are shallow and pedantic.
He's a bit pedantic, perhaps, but I'm unsure how you extracted shallow. Also, pedantry is well warranted in the face of such blatant ignorance.
|
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube.
|
On January 04 2010 16:24 evanthebouncy! wrote:
HhahAhaha
China
British
Drug
or rather
British brings drug to China
doesn't really go well lol
Britain: Bringing drugz to China since 1750
Lol fantastic slogan
|
Does 7strife share the same ip as all these other random single/double digit posters in this thread ..?
It's also pretty ironic that most people who keeps harping freedom of the press doesn't even read the papers.
|
On January 05 2010 00:10 edahl wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 06:07 Tien wrote:
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions?
+ Show Spoiler +THE MAN WAS INSANE. HE WAS ILL IN THE HEAD. HE COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. HE WAS A CUCKOO, A NUT JOB. CHINA JUST MURDERED A CONFUSED LITTLE BIRD. Damn it felt good writing all that out in caps. China's sick laws to themselves*, but that man could not be held responsible for his own actions and thus China should have been open to a bilateral solution based on discussions with the UK. That's the crux of this whole case, not whatever the other guy did: China was a dick to a guy who didn't have his brain right, UK will never say sorry to China for China being a dick (they never do to anyone, even non-dicks), and now we might have a general problem with the relations between these two countries. *(although ideally the entire world would have laws that respect human beings, and no that's not a "damn communists" thing)
Well, that's the thing. If you've been reading the thread, you'd know that it's questionable whether or not he really was mentally unstable. I agree that China could have looked into it more, but you have to admit the circumstances were incredibly suspicious since there's no previous documented history of him being ill.
Also, as mentioned before, where was his family in all this? If you know the guy's unstable, why wasn't he supervised more closely, you know, before he entered China with 4 kg of heroin (you only need to be caught with 50g to be given the death sentence). The timing for him to suddenly be known as mentally ill is a little too convenient is all. Of course, we can't know either way at this point, but just because the BBC says he was mentally impaired doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
|
On January 05 2010 02:56 BalliSLife wrote:
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube.
Really? That is interesting.
|
On January 05 2010 02:56 BalliSLife wrote:
China has their own versions of facebook and plenty of sites that are like youtube.
true but it is really sad 
I kept trying to show my friends my upload on youtube :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
