|
On April 25 2011 01:27 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous". Argumentum ad populum. Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote! Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
Your opinion is poorly formed and based on ignorance, a general mistrust of humanity and false sense of superiority. I don't have time to go into all of the reasons this argument is 1) ridiculous and 2) completely derailing this thread.
|
On April 25 2011 01:27 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous". Argumentum ad populum. Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote! Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
First of all I'd like to address your previous post. You can't force protection on people who do not want it. To do so would require the switch to a totalitarian state. You may argue that this is good (it is, according to you, in the people's best interest) but you wouldn't find too many to agree with you. If you don't even know that this is what you're actually saying then maybe you should either read up on political theory in general, or just be quiet.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
So, I ask you, what makes democracy the most retarded form of rule? I understand what you propose instead (and impossibility), but you haven't really argued against democracy other than to bring up your fears of the US. Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
|
Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this. There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse.
Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else. I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on.
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
|
It's just another bill meant to target poor people/minorities. As with other "drug laws" I doubt you will see upstanding citizens with money and white skin going to prison for significant amounts of time if they break the law.
|
On April 25 2011 01:33 ryanAnger wrote:
I'm honestly not sure why I bother reading these threads any more, because they just make me fucking furious.
The fact of the matter is this: The drug cartels would lose their biggest cash crop and virtually fade away.
do you really think that the elimination of the illegal pot market is going to stop drug cartels? you know, consider other drugs maybe?
|
Hey, how about we don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to incriminate people who smoke a substance that has vast potential to do good in our world when the government could actually exude itself from the extreme amounts of debt its brought upon itself by utilizing marijuana productively.
|
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote:Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote. You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'. Show nested quote +Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this. There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse. Show nested quote +Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else. I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on. Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote. Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law. MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
Your idea of a council of wise men, or especially trained and intelligent people will lead in no time to corruption and nepotism. If you give a small amount of people more or less absolute power, they will become corrupted (especially if we would still have the same economic system). And in turn, they will try to keep the status-quo, and keep their status as political and economic elite, and all your progress, that you thought they bring to you because their "experts" (who defines whos an expert? other experts?), is null.
|
On April 25 2011 07:08 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote:Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote. You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'. Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this. There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse. Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else. I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on. Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote. Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law. MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID! Your idea of a council of wise men, or especially trained and intelligent people will lead in no time to corruption and nepotism. If you give a small amount of people more or less absolute power, they will become corrupted (especially if we would still have the same economic system). And in turn, they will try to keep the status-quo, and keep their status as political and economic elite, and all your progress, that you thought they bring to you because their "experts" (who defines whos an expert? other experts?), is null. Obviously even a technocracy has its faults and obviously some sort of regulating system should be in place. I do not believe it is feasible in these times though, sadly.
Also, I do believe scientists and other intelligent people are less likely to be corrupted by money and power. Do not take my word for this though (like you would ;D), but I just have this feeling.
|
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote:
Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote:
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
I've never said democracy is a good system. I will say, however, that it's the best bad system of all the available ones. As the post above me pointed out there's a myriad of problems with a council of old wise men. I'll bring up another one he didn't: Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate?
To solve at least some of the issues, have a look at this:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2g.htm
Someone who lived over 2000 years ago gave this a lot more thought, and yet he is still way, way off what is realistic or even desireable.
On April 25 2011 07:29 Thorakh wrote:
Also, I do believe scientists and other intelligent people are less likely to be corrupted by money and power. Do not take my word for this though (like you would ;D), but I just have this feeling.
They're no more infalliable than anyone else. In fact, smart people are probably a lot better at justifying their corruption, both to themselves and their peers and the public.
|
It really still shocks me that marijuana is such a "bad" thing and it's being treated like it's meth or cocaine. I mean compared to alcohol it's really not that bad, alcohol does so much worse for the body as well as society. I'm not a smoker btw 
|
Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate? A council would need to consist of a very large number of scientists and other notable intelligent people, basically for each possible topic at least one member. This would also make sure the power isn't in the hands of a few 'old wise men', but in the hands of a very large number of intelligent people. Also, scientists are better trained in trying to understand stuff, so they should easily be able to communicate with the other members of the council. About your concern on deciding what is best, action should be dictated by what science thinks of the subject. In the situation where there is no science involved in the decision, scientists are generally smart enough to have a debate with real credible arguments. This could also be where social scientists chip in.
You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests. I think you are grossly overestimating the general public  And of course the voters vote on the person that they think will work the most towards whatever goal the voters have. But obviously, that goal is more often than not, completely retarded. When we have loads of people voting for a man with a funny haircut in my country that makes all kinds of retarded statements about the Islam and another load of people voting for a political party that is only concerned with economy and doesn't give a crap about the environment or poor people. Then these two form a government with a Christian party, you have yourself a very bad government.
And this is in a fairly educated country that is high on the happiness lists. I don't even want to think about how dumb the masses are in lesser developed countries (or in the USA considering DONALD TRUMP is running for presidency, nevermind that people will actually VOTE on him, oh and dare I mention Sarah Palin?).
|
I'm not even gona try anymore the amount of misinformation thats spread over the internet about pot just shocks me.
|
Yeah, um, I don't think social scientists would agree with your idea (I should know, I study political science). There's also this HUGE problem with difference of opinion about more or less everything in the scientific world. It's run on theories, and those can always be true or false. They're not necessairly more true or false just because one has more scientists behind it than the other, either. Then you have this problem with a lot of scientists, while being very good at thinking critically in their particular area, are, at least for me personally, completely inept at thinking critically about how to run society or just lack the ability to see to the best of the people.
I don't see how I am overestimating the public. Unlike you I believe people are capable of choosing representatives to represent their opinions, ideals and goals for society in the political world. On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to direct democracy.
Lastly, I don't know what country you're from. I'm very sorry if your political system is dysfunctional. And I believe the american system is dysfunctional. That doesn't mean democracy on the whole is bad. I'd like to advice you to read up on the issue.
On April 25 2011 08:04 sermokala wrote:
I'm not even gona try anymore the amount of misinformation thats spread over the internet about pot just shocks me.
Oh come on, please tell me what information you're talking about. You got me all interested now!
|
Decentralisation (apart from education) is key in a democracy. I really dislike representive democracy as it also encourages different forms of corruption. Also participation of the people it's made up of, gets discouraged because "making an x every few years" for a party or a representive of a party (like in the usa) has to be enough for the people.
People don't care about politics because they have the feeling that it is not important whom they vote for, because they're (politicians) are all the same. Which is in our modern times pretty true because parties differentiate only in shades from each other and you more or less don't have a say in their governing.
|
On April 25 2011 08:00 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate? A council would need to consist of a very large number of scientists and other notable intelligent people, basically for each possible topic at least one member. This would also make sure the power isn't in the hands of a few 'old wise men', but in the hands of a very large number of intelligent people. Also, scientists are better trained in trying to understand stuff, so they should easily be able to communicate with the other members of the council. About your concern on deciding what is best, action should be dictated by what science thinks of the subject. In the situation where there is no science involved in the decision, scientists are generally smart enough to have a debate with real credible arguments. This could also be where social scientists chip in. Show nested quote +You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests. I think you are grossly overestimating the general public And of course the voters vote on the person that they think will work the most towards whatever goal the voters have. But obviously, that goal is more often than not, completely retarded. When we have loads of people voting for a man with a funny haircut in my country that makes all kinds of retarded statements about the Islam and another load of people voting for a political party that is only concerned with economy and doesn't give a crap about the environment or poor people. Then these two form a government with a Christian party, you have yourself a very bad government. And this is in a fairly educated country that is high on the happiness lists. I don't even want to think about how dumb the masses are in lesser developed countries (or in the USA considering DONALD TRUMP is running for presidency, nevermind that people will actually VOTE on him, oh and dare I mention Sarah Palin?).
Good you don't agree with people voting Wilders, i'm all for that btw, but your wise men council is a bad idea in my opinion. You want to go back to an aristocratic government, and i do not agree with that. One reason is captured in this quote i remember from my history class: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Other than that i think an aristocratic government is bad because of the disjointed nature between the rule of the country and the people inhabiting it. Add to that the selection bias you will undoubtely have in your council. The neccesary controlling organs surrounding it would become so cumbersome that these councils would become unfit to adapt to quick changes in society adequately. I think i could go on but this is severely off-topic already so let's get back to the weed imo.
|
i wonder what would happen if they could synthesize heroin? What kind of punishment would you receive?
Oh wait....pain killers.
prescription opiates are 100x more dangerous but are accepted because they are "necessary" in some circumstances. This bill is completely ignorant. What are they trying to accomplish? To me it looks like a "we'll show them stoners" type of situation. When they should be focusing on the bigger problems.
How many lives have been taken or even threatened by hashish?
i read this somewhere a bit ago
U.S.: prescription drug overdoses now match/exceed the number of illegal drug overdoses
My question is why aren't they fining or making laws/bills to better regulate the real problem. They waste their time fighting the war on peace instead of fighting the war on true drugs.
the doctors fda or some one should be held responsible for not doing their jobs correctly and allowing LEGAL drugs to kill more than the illegal ones.
For all the overdose deaths who is responsible? the addict? or the doctor who can't realize they are so dependent? Maybe the FDA for not regulating prescription narcotics effectively if at all?
Or maybe the government as a whole? Either way this is complete garbage and an abuse of power in my eyes. No one is being punished for these victim crimes and they are wasting time focusing on the victimless ones.
sorry reading this made me a little angry. I'm sorry for people living in Oklahoma. Not because of the bill itself, but because the state government seems to be wasting time and money doing a lot of nothing.
sorry for text wall I feel a little better now.
|
On April 24 2011 11:52 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 11:17 Finskie wrote:
I like this law, 2 years to life is abit over the top, but i definitely like goverments taking a more aggressive stance against drugs. Butttttttt they're not. Alcohol, caffine, cigarettes, etc. I'm sure you do one of those drugs, stop trying to infringe on others rights.
That is correct. I do all of them, i dont see the point of legalizing another drug.
Edit: Weed isn't a right as far as i can see?
|
On April 25 2011 08:00 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +Do these wise men know the best of everyone? What if you disagree with what they want? Say that they impose a way for everyone to dress, a time for everyone to pray, and a god for everyone to pray to? Is this the best, simply because they say so? How is this legitimate? A council would need to consist of a very large number of scientists and other notable intelligent people, basically for each possible topic at least one member. This would also make sure the power isn't in the hands of a few 'old wise men', but in the hands of a very large number of intelligent people. Also, scientists are better trained in trying to understand stuff, so they should easily be able to communicate with the other members of the council. About your concern on deciding what is best, action should be dictated by what science thinks of the subject. In the situation where there is no science involved in the decision, scientists are generally smart enough to have a debate with real credible arguments. This could also be where social scientists chip in. Show nested quote +You're underestimating the general public. That said, representative democracy is practical because of the fact that you have fulltime politicians who can, at least in their given area of interest, indeed know every in and out of the topic or topics. What the voters do is try to decide who will work towards whatever goals they feel are in their and their countries best interests. I think you are grossly overestimating the general public And of course the voters vote on the person that they think will work the most towards whatever goal the voters have. But obviously, that goal is more often than not, completely retarded. When we have loads of people voting for a man with a funny haircut in my country that makes all kinds of retarded statements about the Islam and another load of people voting for a political party that is only concerned with economy and doesn't give a crap about the environment or poor people. Then these two form a government with a Christian party, you have yourself a very bad government. And this is in a fairly educated country that is high on the happiness lists. I don't even want to think about how dumb the masses are in lesser developed countries (or in the USA considering DONALD TRUMP is running for presidency, nevermind that people will actually VOTE on him, oh and dare I mention Sarah Palin?).
The big problem is that intelligence=/=morality
A good leader needs to be
1. intelligent to know how to do what is good for the people
AND
2. moral to actually do what is good for the people, instead of just what is good for them.
Then you have the additional problems of
1. even intelligent people can be wrong.. even in a large group, sometimes especially so
2. what is "good" can be a matter of subjective opinion. greater material wealth=good?, greater art=good?, what is the standard for whether something is good or not for someone (anything that doesn't kill you =good?)
Democracy..(at least Limited Constitutional Democracy) means that No one has the authority to remove an opinion from the debate (although it can be disagreed with, ridiculed, and/or ignored) because noone (nor any group) can be trusted to be 100% right.
I know that people in general are stupid and some are less stupid than others. I know that people are also selfish and evil and the only reliable way to stop selfish people is other selfish people.
|
Well growing weed is wrong, and so is speeding. Let's give speeding 2years to life as well, let's win the war on people going too fast.
|
If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
