|
On January 05 2010 12:57 baubo wrote:
You know what I find ironic in all this? Foreigners in China, especially ones with Western European/American passports, get a lot of LEEWAY with the cops. If the cops need 50% of the evidence to convict a Chinese person, then they'd need 150% evidence to convict a foreigner(provided you came from the right places like UK). I speak from personal experience and chatting with cops I know.
So oddly enough, in this situation, I'd trust the Chinese govt more than the UK or American government when the defendant is British. Because they know how much westerners like to bitch about these things and find it too troublesome from a foreign relations standpoint. So if they're putting a bullet to this guy's head, they're REALLY CERTAIN about it. Otherwise they'd never bother.
Btw, the 30 minute trial was for appeals. So it's not short at all. US Supreme Court cases I believe has a 1 hour limit to its cases. It's kind of funny how so many people think the court just convicted him unfairly, when they've likely went through everything with a fine toothed comb.
I think there's a lot of things wrong with the Chinese government. But it's kind of hilarious yet sad that usually westerners never hit the true problems with China. They just poke a bit left and right, sometimes accusing correctly, sometimes miss the mark completely.
Thank you, baubo.
|
On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves.
Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea!
Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways.
|
On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways.
Yeah monolith. Why have any laws at all? Either human beings are strong and excellent, and there is no need for any laws, or they are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how to behave.
|
On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways.
So what are you suggesting a free market of drugs?
And according to your logic, the deaths and crime caused by drug-dealers and abusers in America is perfectly legitimate? Government is here to protect people and heroin is a threat to China's society.
|
On January 05 2010 00:45 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 23:16 Myxomatosis wrote: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.
i disagree. obviously you are shallow and pedantic as well.
|
On January 06 2010 11:44 asianskill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways. So what are you suggesting a free market of drugs? And according to your logic, the deaths and crime caused by drug-dealers and abusers in America is perfectly legitimate? Government is here to protect people and heroin is a threat to China's society.
I am precisely suggesting a free market of drugs. The deaths caused by drug-dealers selling drugs are a result of the people taking the drugs, not the physical act of someone selling them. Every human should have the right to buy what they want and consume what they want (provided they're not buying people, of course). Most of the crime in America is the result of the drug trade being made underground due to laws. If drug laws in America were different, criminals would not be able to compete with free market forces, as the talents that criminals are good at (smuggling, illicit-selling, avoiding narcs and cops) would no longer be necessary in the drug trade. In short, deaths are legitimate if the individual chooses his or her own death, and the currently illegitimate crime would wither under a free market.
Heroin is only a threat to a society if the aforementioned society is rotten from within. A strong and savvy society has nothing to fear from drugs. Make no mistake, when the government has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body, it doesn't mean they're protecting you from big bad drug dealers. It means they're protecting you from yourself, because they don't think you're responsible enough for the job.
|
On January 06 2010 11:43 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways. Yeah monolith. Why have any laws at all? Either human beings are strong and excellent, and there is no need for any laws, or they are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how to behave.
Straw-man argument fails.
|
Do not pet or feed the trolls. They will eventually starve from lack of attention or children.
|
Crime in America, like in many countries, is due to economic disparity and people who are dissatisfied with the normal labor market. It doesn't matter what the product is. The point is people will find some way to game the system and engage in anti-social behaviors because they're trying to profit off of it.
Your proposal doesn't make sense. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we make hacking and cheating absolutely ok in Starcraft? If hacking and cheating was allowed then everyone could do it, and if everyone did it, then the playing field would be level again. Soon enough, the best players will still advance because even with cheats and hacks, if you put an A+ player vs a D player both with hacks on, the A+ player will still win.
This is the same kind of twisted logic that people use to try to justify giving everyone guns. Coz if everyone had them, then having a gun wouldn't be an advantage! NOT.
|
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
|
On January 06 2010 12:00 monolith94 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 11:43 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 06 2010 11:38 monolith94 wrote:On December 31 2009 15:39 asleepingpig wrote:On December 31 2009 15:29 Biochemist wrote:
If someone brought 4kg heroin into the USA nobody would talk about how many Americans he was killing, but people keep saying that about this incident. How does 4030g of heroin kill 26,800 chinese people? How is bringing heroin into the country directly impacting the viability of chinese citizens? It does destroy hundreds of families. Most Chinese are not wealthy enough to enjoy heroine for a long time. They will begin to steal, rob and finally destroy their family and themselves. Wow, Chinese families and people are so weak that they need a massive, death-dealing nanny state to protect them from unwise decisions? I had no idea! Either the Chinese people are strong and excellent, and there is no need for these draconion drug laws, or these sorts of draconian drug laws are necessary because the Chinese are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how they spend their yuan. You can't have it both ways. Yeah monolith. Why have any laws at all? Either human beings are strong and excellent, and there is no need for any laws, or they are sheep-people who don't deserve to choose how to behave. Straw-man argument fails.
I agree with you. I wrote an article here earlier about this.
If you want to speak of responsibility; then it lies upon the person who chooses freely to use the drug. When you outlaw drugs, then you create a situation where the price is so expensive that it fuels the development of criminal enterprises and economically crushes its users so fast they enter the point of no return 100x quicker. In addition, if the price is out of grasp, then the users resort to criminal activity to acquire it. This man shouldn't be executed, he shouldn't even be incarcerated.
Most of the consequences of drug use in society are created by the fact they are outlawed by governments, which spurs the public opinion to desire them outlawed, creating a cycle. If these drugs were legal (and untaxed) then they would cost as much as your laundry detergent. Then, you can begin to address the real problem, educating your people of the danger of addiction to a mood altering substance (and if they choose to use; how to do so properly.)
You claim to support these policies to protect would be drug users and their families; but your policies are the cause of their destruction. I assume we all know we could easily afford and obtain heroin with 99% success rate if we tried, so are your policies really factoring in to diminishing desire to use (or is something else stopping you?) If it cost 20 cents instead of 20 dollars and was 100% success would you suddenly use?
StorkHwaiting and asianskill are complete trolls though, beware.
edit: They always seem to post at the same time (above only 1 minute between each other.) Just thought I'd mention it. So from now, I will watch this topic to make sure you insane totalitarian trash don't troll unnoticed.
|
On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
You're a smarter man than me. I'll stop now.
|
On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
I never claimed that the drug war was the cause of all crime; the only claim I'd make is that the drug war has caused drug crime to explode to incredible and untenable levels. Of course in a free-market drug crime will still exist, just as in a free market corporate crime will exist. However, the government will protect citizens from drug crime in reasonable ways. For example, in providing drug testing to ensure drug purity. That's what the ATF is for. How many moonshine distilleries are left, after all?
Say, for example, that you have a family: their son having not been educated by his parents and fed obvious lies by the school's DARE program, decides to experiment with drugs. He falls further and further down the rabbit hole, and winds up doing something drastic. Say… mug a person. Now, whose responsibility is it that this fellow does something drastic? It's his responsibility, and his alone. It can be the parents responsibility too, if they choose to accept it. Certainly not the drugs, as hundreds of thousands of people daily take some form of stimulant, whether mild or severe, without reacting similarly.
|
On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon.
If drugs were legal "drug dealers" would not exist; you wouldn't buy them on the corner of the block. All the criminals who prosper now from the trade would no longer be prospering from the trade. Do you see drug dealers selling packets of cigarettes or liquor on the corner?
edit: Now I won't continue with you until you first admit you are wrong when you said that "drug dealers" would be set loose upon the society as messiahs. You have to admit, if drugs were not outlawed, then street "drug dealers" would not exist; Then, we can discuss further in a humiliating experience for you. I will hold you accountable for the ignorant foolish things you say.
|
The thing is that "drugs" are actually currently legal in America. Just not arbitrarily chosen drugs. I can walk down to my local packie, just around the corner, and buy enough liquor to literally drink myself tonight. All of it perfectly legal. We just choose not to call alcohol a drug because that would make us uncomfortable. When I was in college I was able to sample a certain mind-altering chemical compound legally because the government hadn't realized it was something mind-altering yet. What was legal then overnight became illegal due to fear. Was what I did unjust? Was what I did really something for which I could now be thrown in prison for? Would putting me, a tax-paying, working citizen in prison based simply on fears really be a valuable use of our government's energy?
Mark my words, there is even an element of society today that would make liquor illegal if they felt they could get away with it and somehow repeal an amendment. These are people who think that everyone should be good like they are good, that everyone should be upright and refrain from debauchery, when in reality debauchery is an inextricable element of what it means to be human. Lead an entirely ascetic, sterile life, and even a cracker with a bit of honey on it can become debauched.
|
On January 06 2010 12:36 monolith94 wrote:
The thing is that "drugs" are actually currently legal in America. Just not arbitrarily chosen drugs. I can walk down to my local packie, just around the corner, and buy enough liquor to literally drink myself tonight. All of it perfectly legal. We just choose not to call alcohol a drug because that would make us uncomfortable. When I was in college I was able to sample a certain mind-altering chemical compound legally because the government hadn't realized it was something mind-altering yet. What was legal then overnight became illegal due to fear. Was what I did unjust? Was what I did really something for which I could now be thrown in prison for? Would putting me, a tax-paying, working citizen in prison based simply on fears really be a valuable use of our government's energy?
Mark my words, there is even an element of society today that would make liquor illegal if they felt they could get away with it and somehow repeal an amendment. These are people who think that everyone should be good like they are good, that everyone should be upright and refrain from debauchery, when in reality debauchery is an inextricable element of what it means to be human. Lead an entirely ascetic, sterile life, and even a cracker with a bit of honey on it can become debauched.
Absolutely. Now, in prohibition of alcohol here in America in the 1920s they got a good quick taste of before and after you put prohibition on a desired drug. Then, they switched back. The terrible effect was too obvious. Let me assure you prohibition of drugs is hurting, not helping! You can see by analysis alone. No one but the criminals benefit by supply extremely down and demand extremely up and industry they the criminals have a monopoly on! Now, you can see them slanging left and right because they have a vested interested in getting you hooked. I don't want drug dealers to be "messiahs" (as you claimed I did earlier in one of your posts) I want them to lose their job! Those who support these laws are the ones who put them in business obviously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
|
Of course, my admission of having used drugs can surely be used against me by those who can't wake up to the reality of things, and insist that surely this means I can't be trusted — an ad hominem! And surely my motivations must be suspect, I could only want drugs to be legalized so I can live my nefarious drug user lifestyle! What a lark. The conservative forces have been so effective in using ad hominem attacks that any serious legalization activist must live like a veritable monk.
That said, the pro-legalization movement has evolved tremendously from the days back in the sixties when pro-legalization meant advocating the use of drugs on a wide scale to heal the psyche of a nation, a la Timothy Leary. Modern voices, like Jacob Sullum, are far more sober and, I hope, more deeply influentialy for it.
|
We're fucking drowning in trolls who probably have never even talked to a Chinese national.
China does know what it was like when drugs were legal. It was destroying the country, and posed such an existential threat to the nation that they went to war - twice - in order to stop it. Maybe the Qing Dynasty should have respected the rights of its citizens to addict themselves to opium and watch their country collapse around them because of it. After all, it would downright coercive or paternal for the Chinese government to preserve its economic integrity or existence as a sovereign nation.
But man, if only China had seen what America had gone through with prohibition. Certainly watching your country collapse around you, being invaded by foreign powers determined to protect free markets and the right to market opium to Chinese addicts, and having thousands of troops killed to defend the right to control imports pales in comparison to gangsters running around with Tommy guns.
|
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out.
|
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
