Fox News on Holland

[bob_the_rambler]

you listen to NPR.....enough said National Public Rubbish.

yes conservitive parents have the right to be worried about liberalisum in the schools that they pay an outragious tuition for their children to attend.

 

[gonzo13]

Author Message
bob_the_rambler wrote:

you listen to NPR.....enough said National Public Rubbish.

Damn, you got me. Totally told me off. Man, just the way you presented your argument. Such a thoughtful, and well researched reason why my source is not to be believed. I don't know how I will recover. I bow to your intellect and general greatness.




I would once again point out that none of the facts are in dispute, and that I refrained from presenting my own opinion entirely.

Oh, and one more thing.....

DUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!! :moon:

 

[Paladin Solo]

Are marijuana and prostitution are any less prevalent in the USA? At least in Holland they made it a part of their society instead of calling it a problem.

Murder is a problem here too...so does that mean we should embrace it?

Not to turn this into a gun thread, but it's not weapons, it's education.

Well, no flames intended, a good paper would be the influence of this forum and your posts' quality evolution since you first joined.

Thanks...I honestly think that this forum has done me some good and opened up my eyes a bit. Meh, you damn foreigners. Anyhow, been a long time since King passed from this world.

Also, can you please stop saying PS when addressing PshycoSniper, because I'm getting paranoid that you're talking about me.

And why so afraid to voice your opinions gonzo? You can't be scared that you'll make enemies by speaking your mind, because then your mind will become your enemy. I love Yoda.

Anyhow, Cal has something up his ass. Good story, just no foundation to support it, even though I'd think that if this were to supposedly happen in the U.S.A., the media around the world would have a field day.

 

[quietfanatic]

you listen to NPR.....enough said National Public Rubbish.

Let me guess, NPR is a public broadcaster that is not in the government's pocket (just out of it) which tries to pursue the truth and point out corruption and illegal behaviour. Let me assume that the targets are usually conservatives (that's because the corrupt more commonly are). Let me guess that their news has very low ratings and is listened to by educated intellectuals who know their facts. Let me guess that they are hated by most conservatives because they speak out when something stinks, even though they would be just as dogged in the pursuit of liberals. I say this because it reminds me of our national broadcaster, which has been investigated about five times for lefty bias and has always been shown to really be 'fair and balanced'.

yes conservitive parents have the right to be worried about liberalisum in the schools that they pay an outragious tuition for their children to attend.

Conservative parents do not need to worry about liberal teaching, (even if the teachers spell correctly). If their opinions are well supported with evidence, then why not agree or disagree. It is true that there should be a balance of opinion in that teachers should teach the syllabus and not an ideology, but the bias should be left to the teachers, and not outside governing bodies. Naturally, viewpoints should be scattered throughout teaching institutions everywhere. Schools should be apolitical, but they can't be.

Unfortunately for conservative parents, intellectuals and academics are more likely to be liberal, because they are educated. To have 'parity' between instructors, you would have to wipe out the intelligentsia and go back to the dark ages.

In Australia they pay to get their kids to schools with the right facilities, learning materials and teachers, because our nice conservative government doesn't give the comprehensive schools enough money.

In an advisory capacity, the government can choose to employ who they want to, but they should be careful not to just have a group of yes men with similar opinions as this could create very dangerous situations, even though they would get what they want. This is what has happened to Bush's cabinet, in that he has no more moderates in positions of power. This is what lead to the stupid war in Iraq and the mess they are in now. I strongly disapprove of this foolishness. But, as long as positions are closely linked to the government and not permanent or independent of politics, I see no reason to legislate against it (you would lose anyway).

However, if it involves people who are supposed to be independent of politics then it must be stopped. Otherwise you could have the stacking of the supreme court with extreme conservative judges who let people steal elections, let big business do what ever the hell it wants and keep minority groups in a powerless position. It depends on the individual case.

 

[Sander]

Are marijuana and prostitution are any less prevalent in the USA? At least in Holland they made it a part of their society instead of calling it a problem.

Murder is a problem here too...so does that mean we should embrace it?

Nice straw man. For one, murder directly harms others, is universally considered a bad thing, has no positive effects, and only huge negatives.
Pot, on the other hand, is used by many, and is not universally considered a bad thing, does not harm others, has some positive effects, mainly on psychriatic patients, and the negatives are small. Both are completely different. The only reason why pot is illegal is convention: it's always been illegal, so there must be a good reason, right?
The legality of alcohol, nictoine and caffeine show that it's not about harmful effects, but only about public opinion.

Not to turn this into a gun thread, but it's not weapons, it's education.

Okay, why the hell did you make this remark? It is superfluous, and will turn this into a gun thread if pursued, something you damn well know, since you so kindly told us in the first par of this sentence. This is basically a statement, without any form of argument, and then telling us we can't talk about it, because that would make it a gun thread. Nice going, PS.

As for liberal and conservative teachers: I can only laugh at silly conservatives and liberals being pissed at other-minded teachers. A teacher is there to teach people, and seeing different opinions can only be beneficial for a child, since teaching is supposed to prepare someone for the real world, and the real world isn't filled with conservatives or liberals either.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Heh...you're in there with me then Sander, making gun threads.

First off, when I stated that murder was a problem here too...etc..., I meant that you don't eliminate a problem by inviting it into your home (by "home" I'm using a metaphor, unless you, once again, want to take me literally).

Second, drugs, including marijuana can, and have harmed others. My friend, about an hour after smoking some, got arrested for using drugs, but not because he got caught in the act of using them, but because he got in a car accident driving down mainstreet, he complained of blurry vision, trying to convince the officer making the ticket he was tired and had a headache. In truth, we later found out he did have blurry vision, couldn't make out the red light, wasn't paying attention to his senses or even reactions, but instead, just "chilling out while driving over 60 in a 25. He did not have any alcohol by the way, just in case you wanted to speculate. That's just minor things of course, and only that of the case of marijuana. Should we legalize it? I don't care, I never anywhere in this thread said I was against it. But I am for regulating the use of it.

Now, as for the gun thread thing, I was simply stating, education, or the lack of, affects the intents and acts of murder, including those committed with guns.

Back on topic, I've been searching some more for any news related to the thread, and can't seem to find anything other than pictures of nazi death camps. Fox News...

 

[Wooz]

... Fucks News.

 

[calculon000]

Heh...you're in there with me then Sander, making gun threads.

First off, when I stated that murder was a problem here too...etc..., I meant that you don't eliminate a problem by inviting it into your home

What I meant by saying that marijuana is not a problem if you don't call it a problem is that with Marijuana, 99% of the problems it causes (IE, used up police resources, ect) are CAUSED by it's illegality. Your story with the kid who was high and got involved in a car accident could have just as easily been drunk instead of high, so why is marijuana illegal while alcohol is not?

I believe they tried that once but it failed miserably, and it has also failed just as miserably with marijuana as well. So why call it a problem when is clearly is only a minor annoyance to society vs. the good it does?


My point is that the author used the legality of Marijuana in Holland to portray Dutch society as being morally inferior, which is false.

 

[Sander]

Heh...you're in there with me then Sander, making gun threads.

No, because I'm only replying to your bullshit statement's basic logic, not to the point your making. Get the facts straight.

First off, when I stated that murder was a problem here too...etc..., I meant that you don't eliminate a problem by inviting it into your home (by "home" I'm using a metaphor, unless you, once again, want to take me literally).

No, but if you can't eliminate the problem, you can regulate it so that it become less of a problem. Regulating prostitution means less exploitation of hookers, less public complaints, less health problems, and more money for the state since they can tax it.
The same goes for drugs: the drugs become safer, less of a public nuisance and in part a source of money for the state.
Secondly, this is assuming these things are, at all, a problem, and we clearly don't see them as a problem: who are you to question that?

Second, drugs, including marijuana can, and have harmed others. My friend, about an hour after smoking some, got arrested for using drugs, but not because he got caught in the act of using them, but because he got in a car accident driving down mainstreet, he complained of blurry vision, trying to convince the officer making the ticket he was tired and had a headache. In truth, we later found out he did have blurry vision, couldn't make out the red light, wasn't paying attention to his senses or even reactions, but instead, just "chilling out while driving over 60 in a 25. He did not have any alcohol by the way, just in case you wanted to speculate. That's just minor things of course, and only that of the case of marijuana. Should we legalize it? I don't care, I never anywhere in this thread said I was against it. But I am for regulating the use of it.

Note that marijuana doesn't hurt other people here, and it doesn't anywhere else: it's the stoned driving, which IS illegal. Just as driking (overage) isn't illegal, but drunk driving IS.

Now, as for the gun thread thing, I was simply stating, education, or the lack of, affects the intents and acts of murder, including those committed with guns.

And you continue with the starting of a gun thread. Why?

Back on topic, I've been searching some more for any news related to the thread, and can't seem to find anything other than pictures of nazi death camps. Fox News...

sucks, to complete your sentence.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Sander, I'm not saying marijuana a problem. I'm saying drugs in general are, as in illegal, harmful narcotics. I pointed out a story where my two friends and an innocent family driving to go someplace almost got killed, because of someone under the influence of marijuana, because it can harm others while you said it couldn't. Yes, it's an almost isolated case, and uncommon, and less lethal than alcohol, but if I were to say alcohol didn't harm others, I would expect someone to argue that it does, whether it's indirectly or not. I would think you would understand a neutral stance when you see one, since I wouldn't care whether it's legalized or not, just as long as it's controlled which seems to be the case.

And who's to say just because you legalize and regulate something, everything is going to be hunky-doray? Piracy, especially that over the internet, is a major problem, why, because people don't want to buy something and pay for tax, like some legalized prostitution, when they can get something cheaper, while sacrificing quality, even though, in some cases, it may be illegal. Child porn/prostitution...hmph...I dearly hope you wouldn't want that legalized just because it's an obstacle in the way. Now, I understand what you are saying, if you can't eliminate the problem, then how about lessening it by accepting it and regulating it. Well, I rebuff by saying some problems are too unacceptable to be eliminated, like murder, child porn, etc... Yes, marijuana can be accepted if alcohol can, but when you say

No, but if you can't eliminate the problem, you can regulate it so that it become less of a problem.

...I get a little nervous hoping you don't mean ALL problems.

And you continue with the starting of a gun thread. Why?

I'm not making this a gun thread damnit, no more than you would be making this into a political debate about which nation's policies are better than the other when it comes to drugs and prostitution. I'm stating a fact which was almost directly related to my statement about murder.

 

[Ashmo]

Drug abuse is one thing. Not being able to handle drugs sensibly is another.

There are people who get aggressive when they are under the influence of drugs, I on the other hand do not.

The problem is not the drug (just as most things aren't a problem per-se), the problem is how people deal with them. You got druct addicts without legalizing drugs and banning them doesn't help against preventing drug-induced accidents either.
The answer is apparently not banning them but preventing their abuse.

As drugs are rarely directly used to harm others (you'd need to force someone to take them in order to do that) their use is an entirely personal decision.
The problem is that some people are stupid and ignore the fact they lose control once they are under drug influence. That is an entirely different, social, issue.

Marijuana is a soft drug. It is less addictive than nicotine. Marijuana abuse is just as harmful to the addict as nicotine or alcohol can be.

If, by your logic, marijuana must be illegal because individuals under its influence are more likely to inflict accidents that in consequence also means alcohol needs to be illegal. If that is your opinion anyway, you are not trying to discuss why marijuana should (not) be legalised but why all drugs should be banned, which is an entirely different discussion and for which the anti-marijuana arguments could hardly be anything more than strawmen.

 

[Sander]

I'm not making this a gun thread damnit, no more than you would be making this into a political debate about which nation's policies are better than the other when it comes to drugs and prostitution. I'm stating a fact which was almost directly related to my statement about murder.

The problem is that it isn't a universally accepted fact, and that you mentioned guns without a clear reason. The fact that you see it as a universally accepted fact shows that you didn't put much thought into it.

Also, I didn't mention countries nor "your policies are worse than mine" or anything of that kind, so I'm not doing that, you are. Stop trying to shift blame to me for things I'm not doing.

...I get a little nervous hoping you don't mean ALL problems.

It's if...then. IF you can't eliminate a problem, THEN you can at least regulate it.

Sander, I'm not saying marijuana a problem. I'm saying drugs in general are, as in illegal, harmful narcotics. I pointed out a story where my two friends and an innocent family driving to go someplace almost got killed, because of someone under the influence of marijuana, because it can harm others while you said it couldn't. Yes, it's an almost isolated case, and uncommon, and less lethal than alcohol, but if I were to say alcohol didn't harm others, I would expect someone to argue that it does, whether it's indirectly or not. I would think you would understand a neutral stance when you see one, since I wouldn't care whether it's legalized or not, just as long as it's controlled which seems to be the case.

Thanks for not reading my post. I just said that that's not a problem with marijuana causing harm, but the idiot driving while stoned. I drew a parallel with alcohol. Thank for ignoring it. I dislike having to waste my time on people who don't put in the effort to at least try to respond to points made in a post.

And who's to say just because you legalize and regulate something, everything is going to be hunky-doray?

I never said any such thing.

Piracy, especially that over the internet, is a major problem, why, because people don't want to buy something and pay for tax, like some legalized prostitution, when they can get something cheaper, while sacrificing quality, even though, in some cases, it may be illegal. Child porn/prostitution...hmph...I dearly hope you wouldn't want that legalized just because it's an obstacle in the way. Now, I understand what you are saying, if you can't eliminate the problem, then how about lessening it by accepting it and regulating it. Well, I rebuff by saying some problems are too unacceptable to be eliminated, like murder, child porn, etc... Yes, marijuana can be accepted if alcohol can, but when you say

Why? Why are some problems too unacceptable? Just stating it doesn't make it true. Again: if you can't eliminate a problem, at least lessen it by regulating it.

EDIT: More news, Fox sucks even more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4093965.stm
Muaha.

 

[Ashmo]

Go Sander! Go Sander!

:: bounces like a teenage cheerleader ::


Ahem.

I'd like to second Sander here, Solo. You don't make any sense.
Stop trying to talk around the issue by throwing child-abuse arguments at people.

Your mentioning of prostitution also makes no sense either. In Germany prostitution is legal (as it is in most civilised parts of the world) and in the city I live in there's even a special tax for it. Instead of having drug-addict whores in dark alleys we now have girls earning money in brothels or in officially registered in the outer city rims.
Drug prostitution and violence against prostitutes has been minimized and prostitutes have become more accepted by the society.

If it doesn't harm anyone, there's no reason to ban it. If it causes problems indirectly, regulate it. Simple as that.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Stop kissing ass Ashmo...

How is it so hard to see? I'm not going to repeat it damnit, just read it again.

And who's to say just because you legalize and regulate something, everything is going to be hunky-doray? Piracy, especially that over the internet, is a major problem, why, because people don't want to buy something and pay for tax, like some legalized prostitution, when they can get something cheaper, while sacrificing quality, even though, in some cases, it may be illegal. Child porn/prostitution...hmph...I dearly hope you wouldn't want that legalized just because it's an obstacle in the way. Now, I understand what you are saying, if you can't eliminate the problem, then how about lessening it by accepting it and regulating it. Well, I rebuff by saying some problems are too unacceptable to be eliminated, like murder, child porn, etc... Yes, marijuana can be accepted if alcohol can, but when you say

And I never said marijuana should be illegal for whatever reason, not the one you stated which you though my logic was because it influences people. I repeatedly stated that I don't care.

As for euthanisa/selective breeding, I believe as long as the parents decide on their child's fate, then it's a little more acceptable.

 

[quietfanatic]

What exactly does the regulation of marijuana involve in the Netherlands? Where is it purchased and at what age is it legal for one to obtain it?

Pot, on the other hand, is used by many, and is not universally considered a bad thing, does not harm others, has some positive effects, mainly on psychriatic patients, and the negatives are small. Both are completely different. The only reason why pot is illegal is convention: it's always been illegal, so there must be a good reason, right?

What about the mounting evidence of marijuana's negative affects, which is gaining increased weight recently? In Australian schools and through the media, we learn about not only the short term negative effects, but also the serious long term affects. The use of cannabis increases the chances of developing mental illness, such as schizophrenia, especially among adolescents and those with a family history of mental illness. We are still not sure by how much the schizophrenia is aggravated by the use of the drug and where similar symptoms emerge in those who are not prone to the condition. However, we know for sure that it does happen. About 1% of casual users develop serious mental illness and the figure is doubled for heavy users. The link is hard to quantify but it's definitely there.

Worryingly, recent research has suggested that young people are not just put at a higher risk of developing schizophrenia, but of suffering permanent brain damage. Conventional wisdom asserted that adolescents usually developed to full adults in their late teens, but now we know that myelination and the initial development of the brain actually finishes in your early twenties. This stage involves the fine tuning of the regions of the cerebral cortex vital for the use of higher reasoning. This development is hindered by the use of cannabis, so young users may not reach their full intellectual potential. The problems is that people are starting to smoke at younger and younger ages. This means that brain development is disrupted for a much longer time. They have a higher chance of going on to harder drugs and can develop addiction to cannabis, although there is much lower chance than some of the other illicit drugs. You could effectively argue that they will be dumber because of their long term drug use. The negative, long term affects can emerge not only from heavy use, but also casual use. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The use of marijuana is also dangerously high among adolescents because it is seen as 'safe' and many 'responsible' adults remember their own experimentation as young people with the drug and see little harm in it. So they are less stringent in controlling it and are less suspicious of its negative affects. They seem to see it as a symbol of freedom and youthful rebellion, just as conservatives must. The establishment might ban it for these reasons, but that doesn't mean that the other effects are not a better justification for banning it. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it is bad for sure, but it is likely that there is a good reason for it, otherwise it would not be illegal would it?

To be fair, the research is still not complete and as it would seem, not widely known. (An old article can be found here here.)The solution of course is more education. Then if people know about the adverse affects, they can make their own decisions as adults, just like any other legal drug with harmful side affects. However, to me the risk would seem to be too high for young people. We need more research to determine the full extent of the effects of drugs so young adults can know what they are getting themselves into. Teenagers do stupid things at the most vulnerable time of their lives and the law needs to protect them from themselves. Sure, adults can be immature, but society is responsible for protecting it's future.

Among adults, regulation of the use of a cannabis is obviously a very good idea, as it would aim to control abuse of the substance, reducing the chances of serious short and long term affects. But some things cannot be regulated, such as child prostitution, which infringes on the rights of children, taking away their freedom and no doubt causing permanent psychological and physical damage. Sometimes, you have to draw the line and not compromise, according to the morality of the majority. It must be made clear that some things are unacceptable to the human race and will not be tolerated by any well-educated, advanced society.

 

[Sander]

How is it so hard to see? I'm not going to repeat it damnit, just read it again.

Yet again you fail to notice the difference between an argument and a statement. You state that regulating everything if you can't eliminate is bad, but don't give any arguments whatsoever for it. As I've also said before in my previous post.
Those aren't arguments. They are nothing more than saying "I don't like the idea." Yes, you don't like it, so what? That's no argument.

quietfanatic:
Pot is not entirely legal, it is allowed to be used without punishment. The regulation states that you can use it in your private home and certain places, that those places can sell it, how much they can sell to people, what taxes they pay. Also the age is regulated (18).

As for the negative effects: they are well-known here, but still comparatively small, whic his what I was saying. The negatives are there, obviously, but they aren't automatically noticed, they are less serious than the negatives of cigarettes, say.
Also note that the link between disorders and pot isn't without it's problems, often people with disorders smoke pot to become calm and feel the ffects of their disorder less. It's hard to quantify the link.

 

[SuAside]

quietfanatic:
Pot is not entirely legal, it is allowed to be used without punishment. The regulation states that you can use it in your private home and certain places, that those places can sell it, how much they can sell to people, what taxes they pay. Also the age is regulated ( 18 ).

a bit more detail:

netherlands:
- can't be produced in big quantities legally (so basically, the origin of it is almost never legal, except a few special medical farms.)
- can only be sold in certified coffeeshops (or by pharmacies for medical use). it can only be bought by people who are older than 18.
- can be used at home or at the coffeeshop. public use is illegal.
- you are free to own mary jane, shit & mushrooms

belgium:
- by law, any production of it is illegal, but the police will allow you to grow it in moderate quantities (max 2 plants i believe)
- by law it cannot be sold legally (all dealers will have to face justice, but buyers usually go free)
- by law all use is illegal, but the cops wont intervene as long as you do it at home or somewhere private. the big catch here is that you cant smoke in the presence of minors (even at home).
- by law all ownership is illegal, but the police will allow you to own moderate amounts. (if you carry too much you will be considered a dealer)
- what the cops DONT allow is import (even of small amounts), so basically you have to watch your ass if you go shopping in dutchyland :p
(all the above applies only for adults)

 

[Paladin Solo]

Sander:

I gave two good arguments why when you said that "if you can't eliminate something, then regulate it," that this should not always be the case. Why are you still missing my two good points why this doesn't work, i.e., child porn and piracy. Child porn should never be legalized, piracy would be a little easier to regulate on the other hand, but should it be legal just because it's a problem?

 

[Sander]

I gave two good arguments why when you said that "if you can't eliminate something, then regulate it," that this should not always be the case. Why are you still missing my two good points why this doesn't work, i.e., child porn and piracy. Child porn should never be legalized, piracy would be a little easier to regulate on the other hand, but should it be legal just because it's a problem?

Regulate is not the same as make legal. I can't see any real means to justify legalise child porn, but, for instance, child porn without actual children could be legalised and thus it could be partly regulated. Piracy can't be regulated, because it is by definition not regulated. If you start to regulate, you create on-line stores with less money, or you allow people to make copies and redistribute if they pay taxes or small amounts of royalties. There are always ways to regulate it to a greater or lesser extent.

Also note that you never used them as arguments, merely as exclamations without anything behind it. And you haven't now, either. You just said 'can't be done' without arguments.