 |
| |
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
The following article is about alcohol, but I think the argument is relevant. Especially since there were a couple of mentions about driving under the influence.
edit: added link
http://www.joebobbriggs.com/jbamerica.asp
Too Drunk to Drive, or Just Too Drunk
By Joe Bob Briggs
July 4, 2002
copyright
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the time of year when we get assaulted with "Don't get drunk" ads.
Of course, they don't call them that. They're "Don't drink and drive" ads, or "Know when to say when" ads, or "Be a real friend--take the car keys" ads.
But I've noticed something over the past five years or so. Gradually the messages are changing from "don't drive drunk" to "don't get drunk at all." They're not so much about protecting lives on the highways as about making alcohol into this Evil Thing that no right-thinking person should ever over-indulge in.
Didn't we go through this once before? Didn't Carrie Nation fight this battle a hundred years ago? Didn't we have ten years of total alcohol probition, thereby proving that it doesn't work?
The difference a hundred years ago is that we had women saying "We don't want you men to drink," and the men saying, "Well, we like to drink, so we'll do it at the club where you can't catch us." Women hardly drank at all, and when they did it was some sort of fruity thing like a julep. (Come to think of it, not that much has changed.) The battle over drinking is partly the ancient battle of the sexes. Women could live without it. Men couldn't.
Earlier this month the Michigan legislature put into effect a new law saying that "I was too drunk" can't be used as a defense to any crime or behavior, no way, no time. I would be surprised if it's constitutional--you're supposed to be allowed to put on any defense you want the jury to hear--but let history record that the bill was sponsored by a female. And Michigan wasn't the first to do it. Ten other states have outlawed a defense that was previously honored for almost a thousand years: admitting intoxication as a way to plead that your judgment was impaired.
The only way this can be interpreted is that drinking too much is now a crime in itself. "The defense that you don't have to take personal responsibility because you are drunk," said State Representative Ruth Johnson, sponsor of the legislation, "is against everything this country stands for."
Well, not really. Laws like that weren't even common in Communist Russia, where they penalized you for the slightest outrages against public "normalcy," but where drunkenness was still regarded as a partial defense. When the Constitution was written, public drunkenness was a crime, but when other crimes were committed while drunk, it was considered a mitigation. That principle lasted about 200 years, and I don't think the courts enforcing it were unAmerican.
It's not a crime to get drunk. Let's start with that. We're going through some kind of retro-Puritanism phase right now in which any kind of benevolent depiction of intoxication is banned. Foster Brooks, Red Skelton and Dean Martin, entertainers who traded on their intoxication, doing "drunk acts" onstage, would probably be picketed by the PTA today, and they certainly wouldn't be allowed on national television.
The reason given, if you press for an explanation, is to cut down deaths on the highways. But what if, like me, you have no car? Why is it assumed that everyone is driving? Even if you do have a car, you might not have it with you. And how is the bartender--on the hook for "over-serving" laws--supposed to know whether the person he's serving has a car or not? Haven't we passed laws that essentially say it's no longer legal to get drunk, even in a bar, regardless of whether you're driving or not?
So the whole driving issue is a red herring. The real truth behind all this legislation is that the authors of it simply don't like liquor. If they could bring back Prohibition, they would. And making it illegal to do anything WHILE drunk is just a back-door way of saying you should sip one wine spritzer per day and then go home and have some coffee. It's yet one more example of government trying to legislate lifestyle.
It also assumes that everybody is drunk in the same way, at the same level, in every case. It makes no distinction between actual blackouts--when you really don't know what you're doing-- and being one-tenth of a point over the legal level of drunkenness. It makes no distinction between the guy who is impaired after one drink, because he's an alcoholic, and the guy who can drink ten but still make judgments. There was a time when it was believed that judges and juries should make these kinds of fine distinctions, but now we have one of those "zero tolerance" laws.
"Zero tolerance" is the solution for people too lazy or stupid to figure it out. "Zero tolerance" is for people who think every court case is the same, every defendant is the same, and every judge is a child who shouldn't be allowed to look the accused in the eye and make a judgment call. (Increasingly judges aren't allowed to judge anymore.) "Zero tolerance" is the language of the fanatic, the zealot and the witch-hunter.
I'll give you an illustration. In any drunk-driving case, there are three factual points in time that have to be studied by the court:
1. When the guy started drinking.
2. When the guy got into his car.
3. When the guy got stopped, either because of an accident or because he was pulled over.
The number of drinks has to be divided by the time that elapsed between point 1 and point 2 in order to figure out how drunk he was.
At point 2, there could--under the old laws--be two types of mitigation. He might know he's had too much to drink but get in the car anyway. He might think he's under the limit. Or he might be so blind drunk that he doesn't even know what city he's in or what day it is. Under the old system, evidence would be presented to determine what kind of decision he was making, if any at all.
This is all moot now. The legislatures and courts have essentially said, "People who drink have no rights." A person having an actual alcoholic blackout--a person who is, according to the American Psychiatric Association, clinically ill--is regarded at point 2 as a person who is rationally choosing to endanger other people's lives.
But the law goes even further. Current DWI laws say that, if you cause an accident while drunk, you're punished more than a person who drives recklessly for some other reason--for example, a person who's just angry, or stressed-out, or sleepy. The logic here is that you always know what you're doing when you get into the car, even if later events prove that you don't know what you're doing. You get an extra year, or ten years, tacked onto your sentence for choosing to get behind the wheel, even if you can prevent evidence showing that you didn't choose to get behind the wheel--evidence that is now forbidden anyway.
What this does is hammer you for point 1--having the first drink. It's a law against drinking. And maybe that's what they want. God forbid anyone should suggest that every case is different, that types of intoxication are as variable as types of people, that levels of responsibility are as complex as human beings. God forbid we should go back to having real trials instead of kangaroo courts. God forbid the courts should ever show an iota of mercy to a sick man.
That would be so 19th century.
Last edited by MosesPresley on 04-02-2003 at 02:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
Quick question:
Why, when discussing health effects, does everyone seem to assume you have to smoke pot to get high? Cookies will do the trick, and not **** up your lungs. Plus they're yummy.
As for driving stoned... bad idea. Done it, was impaired, realized it, stopped doing it. Alcohol & Pot impair you differently, but they both impair you.
There is really only one problem I see with the legalization + driving is this:
The current testing for marijuana will turn up use over a long period of time. It isn't equivalent to a breathalizer. So how do you test for stoned drivers? You could pull somebody over, test them, and charge them for getting high the previous weekend, while they were completely sober when driving. That's a problem for law enforcement.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Gatekeeper - quote:
FYI, I did *not* call you an idiot, although I am sorely tempted to do so at this very moment. To wit: |
quote:
Y'see that little part in bona fide quote marks? It was posted by Oerdin way back on Page 1 of this thread, prior to my arrival in this thread. |
So why did you quote my response to Oerdin and accuse me of twisting your words when I was responding to him? You caused the confusion by quoting my response to him and acting as if I said it to you.
quote:
Now, get that joint smoke out of your eyes and apologize. |
Don't blame me for your mistake, a$$hole.
quote:
What I was trying to communicate — repeatedly, I might add — is that if you make pot into just another legal drug available at nearly every store in town (much like tobacco or alcohol), you *do* increase the risk that someone will abuse it, and that someone could be the person in charge of an airplane, a train, a truck or some other critical component of modern society. |
And my point is that you are advocating the punishment of millions of people based on what someone else does while under the influence - that's immoral. Furthermore, banning pot does not prevent people from using pot before flying a plane. And you are making an unsupported assertion - that pot use will increase if legal. The historical record refutes your assertion, drug consumption was comparable to today when all drugs were legal.
quote:
Detachment from reality, huh? I beg to differ. I happen to believe that pot has a far more significant impact on one's perceptions when using it than, say, a shot of booze or a smelly cigarette. That's called a difference of opinion, pal, not a detachment from reality. |
Nice try, but we were talking about being drunk as opposed to high on pot. Thinking that being high on pot is worse or even comparable to being drunk is a detachment from reality.
quote:
Yep. I also advocate beheading pot users. The ultimate deterrent. (cue in barbarian roar here) |
You don't believe pot smokers should be punished? You want the behavior illegal, enforcing the law requires punishment.
quote:
I'm a non-drinker, so any argument involving my supposed support of legalized alcohol won't get much of a reply from me. |
Do you want to ban alcohol and do you tell opponents they should be willing to board planes flown by drunks?
quote:
BTW, did I also say somewhere in this thread that booze is cool? If so, please show me, Berz. |
Did I say you did? If so, please show me.
quote:
The second part of your argument rests on a faulty base; namely, the assumption that what I was saying in my first post was a challenge. |
Stop your ******* spinning, you can call it whatever you want. I saw it as a challenge and a charge of hypocrisy. Telling us we should be willing to board planes flown by high pilots if we support legalising pot is just as absurd as telling proponents of legalised alcohol that they should be willing to board planes flown by drunks. You're trying to get an emotional reaction, not a logical or moral one - that's demagoguery.
quote:
It wasn't, and I'm not going to repeat that again. It was an attempt on my part to get across a single point: Why increase the risk that you would be on a flight with a stoned pilot? |
Then you should have said that instead of implying hypocrisy. But how does banning pot decrease this risk?
Would you have government mandate we all sleep a certain number of hours before work since a pilot might fly while fatigued?
quote:
But I refuse to live with adding yet another risk on top of that; namely, the possibility of stoned pilots. |
That possibility exists now. How can you be oblivious to this reality? And you are still advocating the punishment of millions of people based on what a pilot might do.
quote:
Y'know what? I actually support drug treatment programs for addicts. But, hey, with your ability to peer into my soul, you've uncovered my dark, slithering monstrous secret. (insert requisite barbarian roar here) |
Wtf does drug treatment have to do with your desire to punish millions of people based on what a pilot might do? What if a pot user doesn't want your "treatment"? Will they have a choice or will you force them into this "treatment"?
quote:
Ah, so now we're going to veer off into the wonders of amphetamines, are we? Sorry, but I'm not taking the bait again. This is all about pot and the ramifications of making it legal (or keeping it illegal). |
If you want amphetamines kept illegal, your "concern" about impaired truckers is insincere. I'm not surprised you dodged that one too.
quote:
BTW, did anything ever come of those two U.S. airmen who are on trial for accidentally killing four Canadian soldiers over in Afghanistan? I remember something being mentioned of their use of — yep, you guessed it — amphetamines! Yes, yes, I know. State-sanctioned in this case to keep the men awake longer and supposedly more alert. Tell that to those dead Canadian soldiers. |
Funny, the state gave them the amphetamines. But they were also given bad information, they were told there were no friendlies in the area. But instead of the bad info, you blame the drug. Did you know the practice of supplying speed to soldiers goes back to WWII? We might have lost WWII without amphetamines. The Pentagon also blamed the explosion of the #2 turret on the Iowa on an "alleged" jilted homosexual - Clayton Hartwig - but it was later shown to be bad powder. They made up the BS about Hartwig!
quote:
Oh my, Berz. Aren't you being a sweet boy tonight? Just for that, I think I'll really push for a "Behead Drug Users" bill in Congress, just to fulfill your *fantasies* about folks like me. |
That was your strawman, not mine.
quote:
Non-drinkers and free of drugs like pot, nicotine, cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth. We're a dangerous bunch all right. |
You seek the destruction of our freedom, you certainly are dangerous.
quote:
Actually, the impression I got was that *all* those drugs are considered "gateway" drugs and that this study was merely a repudiation of those who claimed that pot *wasn't* a gateway drug. That claim, according to the study, is likely *not* true. |
A study you didn't even link. By your criterion, every drug is a "gateway" drug. Even the extensive study commissioned during the Clinton administration claimed that pot was only a "gateway" drug because of it's illegal status.
quote:
Pot could very well be a gateway drug, is the essence of the study. |
And I asked what that meant and you dodged that too. Is basketball a "gateway" sport if I started out playing basketball before playing other sports?
quote:
According to the study, which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "... By tracking 311 pairs of Australian twins (both fraternal and identical) in which one twin used marijuana before age 17 and the other did not, researchers have been able to show that early pot users are as much as five times more likely to use or abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, sedatives or alcohol." |
Geez, do you ever respond to my counterpoints? By the age of 17, countless environmental factors have affected changes in these "twins".
quote:
But here's the kicker, Berz: "... What makes this (study) so persuasive is that it factors in such things as economic background, family upbringing and even, in the case of identical twins, genetic makeup." |
How does it factor in psychological reactions to what life brings? If you start out with "identical" twins and one faces more stress than the other, you won't have "identical" twins in 18 years. Why is that so difficult to understand?
quote:
The study also has the caveat that it doesn't have all the answers, but that it gives young people one more reason to heed the advice of their elders. |
Yeah, doesn't have all the answers.
quote:
I'm going to use a tactic employed against me by another person who skipped over a chunk of what I'd written in another thread: "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. What's your point?" |
Did you chastise them for skipping over what you typed in another thread? If so, that's just more hypocrisy. You advocate punishing millions of people for smoking pot based on what a pilot, engineer or trucker might do. That means you advocate punishing the innocent because of the guilty. You wouldn't consider that a moral endeavor if you were the one being punished because someone else committed murder. If government didn't exist, would you run around "taxing" people to get their money to put millions of people in cages for using pot? Would your behavior be moral? If not, what about "government" transforms it into moral behavior?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
Willem:
quote:
But of the known mind/mood altering substances, marijuana is about the least harmful. |
Prozac?
Also, your point regarding the inequity of fines is well taken, although Felch didn't manage to come up with that idea. I don't support fines, I'd rather keep the status quo.
MosesPresley:
Many men as well as women supported alcohol prohibition. The issue is not the gender of the protesters, but the prohibition. It is NOT about gender politics, but about the effects of drunks on society. I go to a Russian ministry, and for them, one of the worst problems people have is with overconsumption of alcohol. There is nothing wrong with having a drink or two, but overindulging causes problems for both the drinker and the other people around him.
Apostle Paul asks that those who are strong to accede to those who are weak. Those who don't have an alcohol problem should be allowed to drink, just not in front of those who are recovering.
Personally, I don't trust myself with alcohol. I'd rather leave it alone. I've driven many a friend home, and helped host their parties, so I don't miss out on much of the fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
Couple passages here.
Ephesians 6: 5-6
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
Colossians 3:22-24
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
This begs the question, if Paul really approves of slavery why does he modify his expression to 'earthly masters?'
Paul answers your very question in 1 Corinthians 17-23.
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
I have only one comment. Someone who wishes to punish me for a voluntary act that is non-coercive and harmless to anyone except myself out of a sense of superiority, moralism, religion, or anything else can **** themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
Nothing is totally harmless. Even the air we breath has pollution in it that can affect our health. But of the known mind/mood altering substances, marijuana is about the least harmful. |
Since we're on the physical note (considering cancers, bodily function etc), let me point out that:
-LSD is less harmful than marijuana
-Psiclocybin mushrooms are less harmful
-Even HEROIN used in responsible doses is less harmful
Of course in practise, the consistent use of these drugs lend more problems than one another in infinitely subjective areas. LSD can and will often screw with your head if you have serious mental issues. Mushrooms run the same risk less occasionally, but there is always the issue of eating say - a nice amanita phalloides by accident and dying bleeding out of your ass over the next few days (rare, though). Heroin, of course - is a drug which is rarely used
occasionally, and is abused by the majority who start it. Yet premeasured and responsible use even on the same consistence and cycle as marijuana is less of a physical health hazard. I know that's a tough one to accept, but if you're shooting pure smack twice a day at a level to just get you considerably buzzed and happy, you're going to lead a way healthier life than any wake & bake pothead.
*Note - yep, pure smack is difficult to come by unless you're connected decently. Yet if government regulation of commericially legalized heroin/morphine etc were put through, that's pretty much what you'd get.
The simple phrase "of the known mind/mood altering substances, marijuana is about the least harmful" is one of the more ignorantly vague assumptions I've yet read for the argument. Again, since we've been centering around the bodily harm constant inhalation does on oneself, you might as well be arguing for the legalization of the drugs I've just listed (to be fair). Let it be known that I sure as hell don't think any of these substances should see the grocery shelves, despite my own occasional use - and I pride myself on that common sense.
Know what it is you're f*cking your perceptions with every waking hour, buddy. This plant isn't some wonderful, harmless personal aid without serious consequences for society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Obiwan - quote:
This begs the question, if Paul really approves of slavery why does he modify his expression to 'earthly masters?' |
Whether or not he approves of slavery is another matter, condoning slavery discredits him.
quote:
Paul answers your very question in 1 Corinthians 17-23.
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. |
The bold is why I reject Paul as a spokesman for Jesus. This notion that a slave is a slave because God assigned him that role is worthy of condemnation - that justifies slavery! Think about it, slavery was abolished in the USA mainly by Christians, but Paul would have told slaves to remain as slaves. If we are to practice the Golden Rule, how does that allow for enslaving others when we clearly would not want others to enslave us? I see a contradiction between Jesus and Paul there...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
I have only one comment. Someone who wishes to punish me for a voluntary act that is non-coercive and harmless to anyone except myself out of a sense of superiority, moralism, religion, or anything else can **** themselves. |
That's wonderful. Although in reality I'm quite sure they'd rather f*ck you, by the hands of 250 lb prison inmates. What a rebel!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
...and the argument paralells with tobacco and alcohol are old, ineffictive, and needlessly trite. I agree that tobacco should become illegal (idealistically only), and often wonder if alcohol should at least be pushed back in accessibility. Both of these substances cause harm to society, in like & seperate areas, in more & less a degree. Then again, I have a problem with putting everything on the same scale so that the example of certain laws may push for one's own agenda.
"Carrying around a loaded handgun so I might possibly shoot some irritating f*ckhead in the face makes me feel good and secure! ...and anyway, what kills more people annually - loaded guns or car crashes? SHOULD WE THEN MAKE CARS ILLEGAL!?!?"
Whatever you say of the current drugs available today, legalizing everything that does harm in sight just because it's not quite as bad as (whatever else) and it makes you feel good isn't a step in the right direction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
Berzerker:
Sloppy language. Paul does not condone slavery nor does he approve of slavery. To condone, is to allow for tacit approval.
I'll bring in a few more quotes to defend Paul.
This is from Philemon 1:10-17, a letter to a slave owner who owns an escaped slave Onesimus.
The key point is his advice to Philemon, to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, and that he exhorts Philemon, that if you consider me as a brother, you will release Onesimus. To keep him a slave is to reject me as a brother and to reject Christ. How is this condoning slavery?
Yes, Paul did not destroy the entire foundation of slavery, but this was not what he was called to do.
You also ignored the part where Paul says that if you can get free, to do so. Why say that if you are condoning the institution?
"
I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him--who is my very heart--back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-- no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back--not to mention that you owe me your very self.
"
quote:
This notion that a slave is a slave because God assigned him that role is worthy of condemnation - that justifies slavery! |
Then you also have to reject many instances of slavery within the OT as well. Why does God allow things that fall short of the moral law?
The answer lies here, in the words of Christ.
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Paul is destroying this entire notion of slavery- that one can be a slave to men who are no different then you. Paul argues consistently that all men are sinners, and thus equal in the eyes of God. They cannot be slaves to men because they already have a Master, who is the Master of all.
Paul wants to convert the slaveowners as well as the slaves, and can only do so if the slaves live exemplary lives. If one were to force the slaves to revolt, in order to join the church, you have just set the church up against the entire structure of Roman society.
Paul could not confront slavery head on, not without the complete destruction of the church. He was left to encourage slaves to leave their masters in whatever way he could.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Zylka - quote:
...and the argument paralells with tobacco and alcohol are old, ineffictive, and needlessly trite. |
In other words, that argument exposes hypocrisy and we shouldn't be concerned with consistency. 
quote:
I agree that tobacco should become illegal (idealistically only) |
Why isn't freedom an ideal?
quote:
Both of these substances cause harm to society |
"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini
These substances don't harm "society", SOME people using these substances harm others.
quote:
Then again, I have a problem with putting everything on the same scale so that the example of certain laws may push for one's own agenda. |
To "justify" a ban on pot, the banners try to claim pot is worse than alcohol and tobacco. By what criterion do they make such an absurd argument? Certainly not annual deaths.
quote:
and anyway, what kills more people annually - loaded guns or car crashes? SHOULD WE THEN MAKE CARS ILLEGAL!?!?" |
That is a question for those who want to ban loaded guns, true?
quote:
Whatever you say of the current drugs available today, legalizing everything that does harm in sight just because it's not quite as bad as (whatever else) and it makes you feel good isn't a step in the right direction. |
Hmm...feeling good is the wrong direction? Reminds me of the guys in Monty Python walking around smacking themselves in the head with wood planks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Obiwan - quote:
Sloppy language. Paul does not condone slavery nor does he approve of slavery. To condone, is to allow for tacit approval. |
Then what would you call it? I can condone the use of alcohol without approving of it.
quote:
The key point is his advice to Philemon, to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, and that he exhorts Philemon, that if you consider me as a brother, you will release Onesimus. To keep him a slave is to reject me as a brother and to reject Christ. How is this condoning slavery? |
The passages conflict. Did Paul condemn slavery and call for abolishing it? No. Did he ask that a friend be freed? Apparently.
quote:
Yes, Paul did not destroy the entire foundation of slavery, but this was not what he was called to do. |
It's not that he didn't destroy slavery, at best, he sent mixed signals about slavery. What exactly was he called to do if not lay (or relay) the foundations of a religion?
quote:
You also ignored the part where Paul says that if you can get free, to do so. Why say that if you are condoning the institution? |
I didn't ignore it, his advice is irrelevant. How was a slave to "get free" while being a good slave and doing your master's bidding? By being freed by the master only.
quote:
I appeal to you for my son Onesimus... you do will be spontaneous and not forced. |
Sounds like Paul was asking for the freedom of someone close to him. That doesn't explain away the general advice he had for slaves and their owners.
quote:
Then you also have to reject many instances of slavery within the OT as well. |
I do.
quote:
Why does God allow things that fall short of the moral law? |
Is God allowing this or commanding it? The God of the OT commanded many evil acts including genocide.
quote:
The answer lies here, in the words of Christ.
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. |
An explanation I never found satisfactory. He is basicly saying they were allowed to commit a wrong because they were bad people.
quote:
Paul is destroying this entire notion of slavery- that one can be a slave to men who are no different then you. |
No, he said men should be slaves to Jesus instead of slaves to men, but for those who were slaves to men, they should be good slaves.
quote:
Paul wants to convert the slaveowners as well as the slaves, and can only do so if the slaves live exemplary lives. If one were to force the slaves to revolt, in order to join the church, you have just set the church up against the entire structure of Roman society. |
Yes, pragmatism won out over morality. So just how long did it take for Christianity and Christians to abolish slavery within their domain because of this pragmatism? How long would it have taken if Paul came out and directly and unambiguously condemned slavery?
quote:
Paul could not confront slavery head on, not without the complete destruction of the church. He was left to encourage slaves to leave their masters in whatever way he could. |
How could a slave leave their master and still be a good slave?
Obiwan, you can quote passages where Paul asked for a friend to be freed all you want, that cannot justify what he told slaves and slaveowners...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
Having once been an acid head, I can speak from personal experience that it can be harmful to a person's cognitive abilities. I would never consider dropping a hit daily, and yes I've done that before, although I have no qualms about smoking pot regularly.
|
Define "acid head" for this skeptical poster. Acid does not work daily, by chemical composition. Temporary tolerance assures that you won't have a trip even of miniscule severity of the one the day before, and it becomes worse after that - with non-existant effects eventually (until you give it a good week long break). So there's no such thing as a continual addiction that can be properly fed with acid - such is not the same with weed. Acid, in the sense of performance shaving multiplied by consistent addiction - can not affect your day to day life as severely as pot, and is mild in comparison.
You have no qualms of smoking daily in comparison - but have you asked those around you who by sobriety would know how it's lessened your abilities and dulled any the edges you once had? (In that assumption - sorry I pegged you as the norm) Do you know that the majority of daily pot users have that happen to them without noticing? We'll probably hit a dead end on that statement, but by common sense you must agree that it's bad to be known as a pothead partially because of social stigma, but in large part due to the truth that THE AVERAGE POTHEAD IS A F*CKING RETARD
(Not aimed at you, you've definitely got a brain. I'm sure you'd draw more respect with increased abilities, though...)
quote:
Ditto. And I believe mushrooms contain small amounts of strychnine. They're certainly not very pleasant on the digestive system in large quantities.
|
Strychnine in mushrooms is a comical urban legend at best - Trust me, drop that assumption before you start waiving canes at people while screaming how the moon landing was faked
I agree they're not very pleasant on the digestive system in large quantities, but what does that have to do with anything at all? Are they more harmful than pot because of that? Pot sure as hell doesn't make my chest and upper throat feel too wonderful, so what's the point? Are you assuming they're lethally poisonous because of this intestinal distaste? Look up the LD-50 of mushrooms if this is the case. Since you're eating a bunch of exotic stale dried fungus, gas could be expected. Eat a jar of hot peppers and tell me how you feel after that
quote:
I don't even know why you would even include this one, it's one of the most addictive substances known to man, with very severe withdrawal symptoms.
|
Note how I said that the minority who manage to use it responsibly? I'm talking about the physical harms of pure heroin on the human body, which is less than that of marijuana when used just as often - withdrawal is harsher, but obviously not a physical symptom you live with while using. In terms of society, heroin is much more dangerous for misuse, but that's not all you've been arguing over. Note that there are subjective harms of every drug, and pot does not simply fall into the "least harmful" category when applied in simplicity.
quote:
You seem to have strange notion of what constitutes a harmless drug. |
I think I've just taken care of that notion - THERE ARE NO HARMLESS DRUGS. To further, even on seperation and combination scales - pot isn't the least dangerous.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2003 01:25
|