Non-Religious Sanctuary Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darkside_Spirit, Feb 1, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    TreeCave, you are in the Senate Floor. ;)

    Anyway, sorry about hardly posting here lately. I'm very busy with other things.
  2. Humble extra Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 1999
    star 5
    my advice is to wear a black or dark blue suit, no tie, and lots of pewter, if you don't get a job, at least you will look good
  3. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Yeah, but I come here from the link in my notification email, so I'm not really aware of what else is going on in the Senate Floor. :)
  4. Darth Dradus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2000
    star 3
    Why is thier yetanother Religious Sancturary thread open? wasn't it just closed? Did i not get the memo ?
  5. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    Breaking news: the Texas Republican party has officially declared the United States a "Christian nation". Click here for the full story.
  6. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I've been saying it for years: nuke Texas and Florida, and the US will instantly become a much better place. (And yes, I was saying this before the Bushlets took them over.) 90% of all evil in this country comes from one of those two states.

    You know, just a side note based on something the article mentioned: when someone opposes abortion in situations where it's the only way to save the mother's life, the only way I can read that is mysogeny. I can't make any sense of it, unless I believe the person who holds that position does not value females, and figures the odds are that almost half the babies not aborted in such circumstances - if they even survive - will be valuable males. I mean, this is not that far out - in China, where they are only allowed one child, there have been many cases of parents drowning their worthless baby girls so they'll be able to have sons.

    I mean, is there any other reason someone would oppose losing a baby to save a mother? The only logic can be that the mother's life is not worth as much as the baby's.... and such a broad assumption must be based on gender, because it's the only thing all mothers have in common.
  7. Ki-Adi Bundi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2000
    star 4
    In a country as big as the states, do you really believe the lack of separation between religion and state is of importance? I mean, it seems from my view (mind you that I am a foreigner) that only a minority in the states is a of really rabid religious kind. Like in many other countries, Brazil for instance, the State is officially of a certain religion (in our case, Christian), but unreligious people (like myself) don't suffer any persecution or restriction whatsoever. Only politics are bound to state their "faith" in "God" or else they get, well, unvoted(it actually happened many a times).

    Edited for better semantics.
  8. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Ki-Adi, it matters in terms of things like restricting access to abortion and other bad laws they want. If all the religion fans wanted to do was stick God's name on dollar bills and so on, I could probably live with that.

    But we're already over-legislated here in the US. I'm against anything - not just religion - that takes us further down the path of telling grown adults what they are and are not allowed to do. It causes adults not to take responsibility as they should.

    By the way, it's so ironic the religious right ended up affiliated with the Republican party. I thought the Repubs were generally against passing lots of laws and bureaucracy... and yet these are the guys who bring us a ban on something that's already not legally recognized - gay marriage. How dumb is that? Even ignoring the bigotry, it's just stupid law.
  9. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    I'm against anything - not just religion - that takes us further down the path of telling grown adults what they are and are not allowed to do. It causes adults not to take responsibility as they should.

    That's the problem for someone like me. I don't agree with them declaring America a Christian nation, although they have every right to say that. And it does at least try to tell us what we can and can't do. The problem is the democrats aren't any better. Maybe they don't do it with religion, but just your pocket book. Religion is mental slavery, high taxes and regulation are economic slavery, IMO. One is really supposed to be better than the other?


    Everything sucks.
  10. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    No, I hate them all. They're like politicians, and I slaughtered them like politicians. I HATE THEM!

    Oh, wait, never mind... that was somebody else... ;)

    Anybody else hear the Imperial March playing?
  11. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    When the governing laws are based upon a particular faith system, it de facto alienates those not of that faith.


    for all my friends, some pics from the latest Disneyland trip


    Also, an FYI, the last show of AOTC at the Chinese is 10:30 p.m. on Thursday. The line is reforming for this event, I have invited other non-line friends and I invite all of you as well.
  12. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    Not only the men, but the women and the children? Man you're brutal treecave. There there. No one blames you for murdering innocent tuskens. Sniffle.
  13. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    well I have to say that I like freedoms, but certain aspects of life I think should be HEAVILY regulated, in particular psychotropic/addictive substances and anything that curtails the freedom of big business to abuse the populace.
  14. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    Cy, I will call you Padmedonia from now on, and I will stalk you creepily until you agree to come live in the cage in my basement.

    KR, I'm of mixed feelings about the substances. I mean, what you named applies to some anti-depressants. I don't distinguish between herbal supplements, sugar, caffeine, street drugs and pharmaceuticals. It's all about altering the state of mind, and the problem I have is that Ephedra is going to be gotten rid of by FDA policies - that's purely for the benefit of the folks who made Sudafed and other such profitable pills.

    It makes me madder than a.... a yak in heat! (Marge Simpson)
  15. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    I see that too, I guess

    I just have such a serious problem with substances which have no legitimate pharmacuetical use. It's fine if it is for medicinal purposes, but otherwise, I say make it illegal. I'm thrilled that the state is looking to raise the legal age for smoking, for example.
  16. Humble extra Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 1999
    star 5
    now me, i think stuff like weed especially should be legalised, possibly cocaine, and other such drugs.....with the tax proceeds devoted almost entirely towards rehab....of course the producers and dealers would also have to pay stiff licensing fees as well.....
  17. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I just have such a serious problem with substances which have no legitimate pharmacuetical use. It's fine if it is for medicinal purposes, but otherwise, I say make it illegal.

    Yeah, the problem is the same as censorship, though - who gets to judge whether there's a legit pharm use? Sometimes it seems fairly clear, but speed, cocaine, heroin, morphine.... all started as legit drugs in cough syrups and Coca-Cola. Alcohol is so much more dangerous than a lot of illegal stuff, so making it legal and them not is whacked. Etc, etc. And what seems clear to me is that the judgment call will be made by politicians whores, plain and simple.

    Here's my solution, and it's rather utopian, I suppose, but I believe if we don't raise the standard for human behavior, people will continue to get more and more ape-like. I suggest we legalize anything you want to put in your body for anyone over 21, AND make sure there's lots of easy public access to all the info on what various ssubstances do to you, for you, and may cause/enable you to do to others. You take what you like, BUT if you hurt anybody else while under the influence, you do triple the normal sentence. And if you get addicted or do damage to yourself, you can't sue anybody - you were warned. Let people make their own adult choices, and pay the consequences only if they cause someone else trouble.

    And of course, this also requires a national health service, so people can't argue that they had to self-medicate a mental illness and guessed wrong about what would help. If there's a national health service, they can't make that claim because, theoretically (which is the only way law functions anyway) they had access to a pro who could tell them what they needed to take. (And by the way, why don't people ever mention how much money businesses would save with a national health service? Insurance benefits for employees are a huge expenditure, but if your employees can legitimately argue they can't afford medical care, it's very hard to make a case for firing them for not showing up to work, even if they don't have a doctor's report. But I digress...)

    And by the way, my reasoning for the triple time punishment is that substances are involved in a staggering percentage of violent crimes (studies vary widely, but I think it's safe to say around half or more). I believe that being under the influence of certain substances (particularly alcohol) causes people to do things they never would have done without the substance. I know not everyone will agree, but in my way of thinking, someone whose natural state is violent may be curable, but someone who willingly takes something to MAKE him/herself violent is even more negligent.

    We need to make people MORE responsible for their choices, not less.

    And I need to go to bed. Geez, this rambled.
  18. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    Well, see you just made the distinction for me. If it is something that can be prescribed to a medical benefit, then I'm all for it. For example, I am a very STRONG proponent of medicinal marijuana. It's the recreational use I have problems with.
  19. Humble extra Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 1999
    star 5
    KR: do you have a problem with all recreational aids, including say alcohol, cigarette etc or is just illegal drugs you don't like?

  20. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    TreeCave, your proposal would amount to criminalising all drugs, not legalising them. If 2/3 of the sentence is contributed to by the drug-taking, then you're being punished for it. Consequently, it's effectively illegal.

    (Why do we have to raise sentences for particular criminal motivations? Why is a racial attack any worse than a 'regular' attack? It's the effect that should matter).

    Who's going to judge what is a "drug" and what isn't? If someone commits murder having drunk a cup of coffee, do they get triple-time?
  21. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    (Why do we have to raise sentences for particular criminal motivations? Why is a racial attack any worse than a 'regular' attack? It's the effect that should matter).

    Because certain drugs - including prescription and over the counter ones - bring about psychopathic behavior that the perpetrator would not have committed without the drug. That qualifies as pre-meditation, whether the rest of the crime does or not: the person had to take the drug even to develop the intent in the first place. To me, that sounds like if I (a petite female) took a drug to make myself super strong so I could go beat up really big, burly men. That's premeditated, and as long as we punish premeditated crimes more than crimes of "passion", then I think a lot of crimes committed DOUI qualify.

    But I'd be thrilled if people under the influence just got the same punishment as someone sober committing the same crime. Right now, it's considered a mitigating circumstance: a drunken rapist is taken more lightly than a sober one, for example. And as for DUI drivers who hurt people - I call that premeditated murder, because they premeditated taking the drink without planning not to drive. It's kind of like lighting a house on fire and arguing, "but I didn't know there was a sleeping family in there".

    So equal punishment would be fine by me.
  22. Ki-Adi Bundi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2000
    star 4
    Cigar is as nocive to the body (of the smoker and nearby's) as marijuana. If one is forbidden, the other should be.
    In an ideal society, where ALL individuals, even if suffering from some integration problems, is mentally balanced enough to not mitigate their frustrations with drugs, such measures wouldn't be necesary. But alas, see the number of crash cars resulting in death due to drunk drivers, and realize the point.
  23. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    Cannabis is harmful. With that established, two options present themselves:

    (i) The state should ban it because it is harmful. We declare that protecting us from our own choices is the legitimate remit of the government. To maintain consistency, alcohol, tobacco, and all other substances deemed "harmful" in some way are also to be banned.

    (ii) It should be decriminalised because banning anything deemed "harmful" is not the role of the state. Here, we'd be declaring that we are capable of making our own decisions, and we do not need a mighty central power protecting us from them.

    I'd favour option (ii), which is the liberal viewpoint. I support keeping EXTREMELY harmful substances, such as cocaine and heroin, illegal. That's where I draw the line as to the limits of government power. It is the role of the state to ban a substance that causes immediate, severe and long-lasting hallucinations, and whose effects the user will carry for life. It is not within government's proper remit to keep cannabis banned because it causes sleep deprivation.
  24. TreeCave Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2001
    star 4
    I still say we have to legalize everything, though I would consent to some restrictions on age (actually, I'd support that), places it can/can't be used, perhaps even circumstances under which it can't be used. To deny intelligent adults the right to put Drano down their own gullets - as long as their hurting anyone else by doing so is NOT permitted - is to treat them like children. This is just my opinion, I don't expect anyone to agree.

    However, if anyone brings up that pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to use substances that harm fetuses, I will be forced to bring out a study that was reported in OMNI magazine years ago, then immediately buried hardcore by the news. This study says that while anything a woman takes during pregnancy can affect the zygote/fetus, tests with rats indicate that anything a man takes [/i]up to 5 years before conception[/i] affects the genetics in his sperm, therefore causing birth defects. You can imagine why no one wanted to hear that - so much easier to delude ourselves into believing that only one parent need be careful, and that for only a few months.

    Seriously, I have waited for any other news story to publish/air that study, and it never happened. That was the same issue of the mag that reported that women on birth control pills are attracted to men with similar histocompatability protein makeup instead of different makeup. Meaning, roughly, they'll seek out the opposite sort of mate from what they'd be attracted to off the pill.... then when they go off the pill (a) they may not be attracted to him the same way and (b) any resulting offspring will not be as outbred as it could be, which is not great for the species or the divorce rate.
  25. Kessel Runner Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 1999
    star 6
    Sorry for the delay Humble, yeah I feel that way about all the recreational toxins. Of course within reason, for example I don't have issues with caffeine.

    My problems with cigarettes are three fold. It creates a HUGE burden on the public health system, it poisons not just the user but all those around the user (including small children, spouses, etc.), and it is disgusting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.