|
Post by Ben on May 31, 2006 11:04:20 GMT 1
but they don't need to. A cell doesn't care why you blow yourself up, just where, and that's a very easy thing to control. And as a matter of fact, the pill thing is incrediby widespread. About 70-75% of suicide bombers are on drugs when they do it (To be honest, you'd need to have some guts to do it without).
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on May 31, 2006 11:36:23 GMT 1
israel want to "take back" the occupied territories??!!??!!?? now correct me if i'm wrong here, but wasn't it palestine that was robbed of the land post-world wars??? no israeli in their right mind could possibly see it like that... it's not taking land back, but claiming the land for the first time, surely?
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on May 31, 2006 11:59:49 GMT 1
both points taken - I am proven wrong But Israel still think it's theirs... that's what I meant to say... the point about them thinking it's ok to occupy that land still stands... though it's all our fault (as per usual) - didn't we GIVE it to them after WW2? And also, I am stil unconvinced as to the extent that pills will have on mind control. don't they agree to taking the pill? this is bordering on how much choice and free will (again) we actaully have in our respective societies and surroundings... I still stand by my contention that the majority of suicide bombers are not coerced/forced into doing what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 31, 2006 15:15:05 GMT 1
yeah, the reason we gave it to them was to do (IIRC) with some Jewish guy inventing a way to make cordite cheaply and he wanted a Jewish homeland. I may be wrong on this, but I think iut was ratified by UN Charter simply because he pretty much prevented the allied forces from running out of gunpowder. Pills don't control your mind, at all. But they give you more bravery than 10 pints, and will make you pretty much feel like whatever you thought you were going to do in the first place (ie: blow yourself up) is actually a fantastic idea and must be done!
I'm not saying they are coerced into doing it, but they're given pills to make sure they do what they already wanted to do.
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Jun 1, 2006 15:01:39 GMT 1
I think the origin of the pill issue came from the fact that I said suicide bombers were not manipulated or coerced and you used it to put a case forward that they were.... but never mind.
this thread is wearing a bit thin. it's hard to revive, and i'm not saying i've run out of subjects, but it seems that it's losing it's lustre.
Incidentally, i went to a free christian lunch talk on "does god hate sex?" the answer was "no, but within limits" if you're interested.
my question was all about our sinful natures... being inherent, natural and so deep-seated in us, that doesn't it imply that God made us that way?
|
|
|
Post by dozyjulia on Jun 1, 2006 15:24:44 GMT 1
this thread is wearing a bit thin. it's hard to revive, and i'm not saying i've run out of subjects, but it seems that it's losing it's lustre. Does that *really* surprise you, though? Honestly? This isn't a Christianity forum and it's not 1743.
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Jun 1, 2006 16:34:13 GMT 1
Well, I had hoped that there was not only room, but genuine interest in some of the things that are affecting the entire world that we inhabit today - religion never stops proliferating and augmenting debates, and besides, these issues are in no way old-fashioned. it's just perhaps that unnecessary reputation that has attached itself to this that causes so much of the issues that we see today.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Jun 1, 2006 18:53:51 GMT 1
Still, if we notice, this thread was actually about a BBC production How off topic can you get? anyway, it's very difficult to keep a debate going when there are only two (perhaps 3) people arguing. You end up with less and less to say to one another. A large scale debate is far more interesting, but nobody seems willing to take heed.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Jun 2, 2006 11:50:47 GMT 1
i take it the free lunch was talking about promiscuity - i didn't go but i could tell what would be involved by the poster... no god-loving citizen would say sex is completely bad, how would we reproduce after all? and without the prolonging of the human race, how would god's existence to these people be recognised?? am i right in thinking they said this but in a far more elaborate way to make the audience believe they were being revolutionary???
i'll try to revive the thread... what does anybody think about legalising drugs?
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Jun 3, 2006 11:37:36 GMT 1
heh. God's wish was for us to Go forth and Multiply, so I suppose we are compelled to fuck simply. For God's sake! hehe
I think drugs should be legalised; i am pro-choice in everything. Rights bring Responsibilities, and it's easier to educate people on something legal than something illegal. Drugs are only a crime cause they're illegal. If drugs were legal people would more likely be better informed. Hell, we could have an industry like the Columbians do! But we could have high quality pills, uncut. Trading standards could get onto it. We would have market forces, monopolies, takeovers, stocks and shares...and at the helm of it all would be me; dominating the market simply by abstinence. By not being off my tits I would conduct the most efficient deals and control the market economy.
MWAHAHAHHA
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 3, 2006 12:50:04 GMT 1
I don't think all drugs should be legalised, but certainly some should.
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Jun 4, 2006 10:47:22 GMT 1
But some drugs actually enhance abilities (to market or whatever) to some extent. I think yes, it's true, the addiction thing is a problem and probably leads to drugusers being less efficient, but at the same time, its not always detrimental... music for example - some of the best is made on acid.
but my stance on legalising is positive - i think it can be a good thing, but there should be an age limit like alcohol and cigarettes... and loads of warnings like on cigarettes.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Jun 5, 2006 23:38:28 GMT 1
i don't believe in age restrictions and i read a good article in the times recently that spelt out the reasons for legalisation and it seemed flawless for me
the money spent on maybe rehabilitating those who do decide to go too far with drugs would pale in comparison with the money spent on the nhs and money "lost" thru non-governmentally-controlled dealings... in fact, she argues that these users should be given more drugs to get them to a stage - that she says can only be reached thru sustained periods - when they wish to give up to get away from the sheer dependence that drugs bring...
ethically, i believe a government should be here to help when it's required, not to create it's own fooked up ideals that are often only implemented to get some twat leader's name remembered over generations in the future (ie tony blair/iraq, etc - there are plenty more examples)
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Jun 6, 2006 10:28:16 GMT 1
are you suggesting that the government effectively drugs citizens into needing to get off drugs? "We've given you something that if you don't take will kill you, but if you give up drugs then we have the cure"....
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Jun 6, 2006 14:59:29 GMT 1
for the people who are at a stage where they can't turn back, yes... but not forcing them inot it anyway... when you get to that stage, the liklihood is that you'll want this kind of govt help... in a world where the british govt creates more hassle than good, it's no wonder people turn to drugs in the first place to get away from the injustices in the world... with the govt supporting rather than oppressing then maybe people wouldnt even reach a stage where they need currently-illegal-drugs to get by
the article puts it more eloquently... it's called "give them all the crack they want" and is probably on the timeonline.co.uk archive but i don't have the exact address
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Jun 6, 2006 21:23:22 GMT 1
heehee. To be honest, that's a good policy anyway. I think we should legalise crack and heroin. The weak would die off and the pure...say, the Aryan...people would live to procreate. In fact, we could...force...these people who...looked weak or undermined the govt...to take the injections of heroin...for the good of the...Reich...
HEIL BLIAR (sic)...
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 6, 2006 22:11:22 GMT 1
Click on the quote for the article, I'm liking it already!
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Jun 7, 2006 16:16:09 GMT 1
ta for the link chris
ben, that's exactly the opposite to the state i was promoting in my last comment, but i'm guessing u know that and were taking the piss
i saw the front of a mate's guardian today and the headline told a story of tighter restriction on drugs users... fookin joke it is
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Jun 8, 2006 9:31:07 GMT 1
hehe, yeah. how much tighter can you get on drug users? "it's against the law! stop it!" "errr....no!" "okay well now we're going to ask a bit less nicely!" "errr....dude, i dont care"
|
|