GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
It's not just the addicts, though: the drug trade finances organized crime. That would no longer be a problem if we legalized it of course (because then the drug dealer would be superfluous), but that would be to give in to it rather than to win over it.
The government would be giving in, not 'us', but maybe they made a mistake. I'm pretty sure the majority of people who are for certain drugs are aware of how harmless they are. Granted their is definite idiots who don't care, but you'll also find idiots where ever you go, including health groups which is theoretically the opposite of illegal drugs. Then there's the other side of the population, who many are unfortunately against every illegal drug. Sadly, this group of people have little knowledge of any illegal drug, and make the assumption that it must be illegal because it is bad. These people are hard to talk to because by telling them any different you are challenging their belief system. 'If the government is wrong about drugs, what else are they wrong about.' This is not something people like to think about because people need faith that the people in power are always right, and making the best decisions for the population.
While typing this, i've made a conclusion that people fall into two groups.
type One: thinks every (or almost every) conspiracy theory is dumb, and the people who believe them are gullible fools.
type Two: Are much more open to believe conspiracy theories, and think that the people who don't believe them are gullible fools.
Type two would be much more likely to take illegal drugs, because they've already become open to the idea that the government makes wrong decisions.
People have opinions and free will, and this should be taken into considertion when comparing them to other animals.
What helps one ecosystem may harm another.
They say that it contributed. Your hearsay is in line with your logic, for the record.
Most successful organizations are hierarchies. For example LinuxQuestions is a hierarchy: you have the admin (who usually governs with a leader principle), the moderators below him, and then the users at the bottom of the pyramid. I'm under the impression that the Linux kernel, Slackware and OpenBSD (some very successful projects) are hierarchies run by strong leaders. Yes, Debian elects their leader, but after the election it works the same way -- democracies are only democratic during the elections; the rest of the time they are run like dictatorships. The iron law of oligarchy is true because it is the most efficient form of government.
Who says it contributed? And where does he live? Nah, I'm sure you are right, but they would probably have invented it anyway. I doubt dope is a prerequisite for the PC.
Quote:
The government would be giving in, not 'us', but maybe they made a mistake.
The government should act in the people's best interest, even if the people don't like it.
All current western governments are destructive for their populations. The slimy democrats and Marxists that are running them want us to be pacified brainwashed slaves dominated by surveillance states. But there are benign governments too.
Quote:
While typing this, i've made a conclusion that people fall into two groups.
type One: thinks every (or almost every) conspiracy theory is dumb, and the people who believe them are gullible fools.
type Two: Are much more open to believe conspiracy theories, and think that the people who don't believe them are gullible fools. Type two would be much more likely to take illegal drugs, because they've already become open to the idea that the government makes wrong decisions.
Very accurate, but you forgot the third type:
Quote:
Journalistic circles in particular like to describe the press as a 'great power' in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense. It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education in adulthood.
Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three groups:
First, into those who believe everything they read;
second, into those who have ceased to believe anything;
third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.
Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white. To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably. Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous. They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others. This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars provide it.
The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in print. They hate every newspaper; either they don't read it at all, or without exception fly into a rage over the contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods. These people are very hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth. Consequently, they are lost for all positive, political work.
The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to form their own judgment on all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough examination and further development of their own. They will not look at a newspaper without always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love such readers with the greatest reserve. For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells the truth only once in a blue moon. Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number- a misfortune at a time when wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous.
I am well aware that cannabis does little harm. I have experience of it, and I know that stoners either are lazy, or have their laziness magnified by getting high all the time, when they could be doing constructive things. Most alcoholists (and by that I mean anyone who ever consumes alcohol) don't let it get out of control either, but some people find it easier to get drunk than to deal with the problems in their lives. Maybe they would sort out their lives if they couldn't escape reality with alcohol or weed. Isn't it the right thing to do, then, to guide them on the right path?
Quote:
Many $ystems of jargon and hate++* to keep power, and, cuts to education? Some laws only make money, others can't be enforced and should be cut for a better way. I don*t have a problem with authority, we have problems with them being HUMAN.
If you teach kids they can't have something they don't care! Smart kids won*t be taught how to be the demons drug laws\fascism* produce. It's called evolution.
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.4,DD-WRT micro plus ssh,lfs-6.6,Fedora 15,Fedora 16
Posts: 3,233
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund
Most successful organizations are hierarchies. For example LinuxQuestions is a hierarchy: you have the admin (who usually governs with a leader principle), the moderators below him, and then the users at the bottom of the pyramid. I'm under the impression that the Linux kernel, Slackware and OpenBSD (some very successful projects) are hierarchies run by strong leaders. Yes, Debian elects their leader, but after the election it works the same way -- democracies are only democratic during the elections; the rest of the time they are run like dictatorships. The iron law of oligarchy is true because it is the most efficient form of government.
beh,what's efficient isn't necessarily right.. a pure Dictatorship is the most efficient when you really get down to it.. I tell you what to do, and you do it.
the problem here is PEOPLE, always has been and always WILL be
on one end of the spectrum you have the lowest common denominator, who are stupid, ignorant, and apathetic (they can't understand,don't know, and don't care) and those are the people with the most vote, they just vote for the most flashily presented dogma\
on the other end you have the slick, conniving, underhanded, lying, cheating, greedy, power hungry, evil jerks that step into power and make rules that only benefit themselves at the expense of the 'little people', (and unfortunately it's the lowest common denominator's willful ignorance of the true extent of their malice that by and large lets them get into power in the first place)
and of course there are those in between who are unfortunately by and large along for the ride
problem is that often when someone TRIES to make a change in the interest of the little person, the propaganda machines rally the lowest common denominator against them, making it look like something in their best interest is actually BAD for them (or in the case of pot, something that is at worst, mostly harmless)
but that's not the fault of the democratic system it's the PEOPLE
even with a dictatorship, if the dictator is altruistic (acts in the best interest of the little person) than there shouldn't be a problem, problem is the dictatorship often has tyrannical, self-serving dictators that oppress the citizens.
so is it oppression by popular vote or oppression by dictator? either way it's oppression
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund
The government should act in the people's best interest, even if the people don't like it.
All current western governments are destructive for their populations. The slimy democrats and Marxists that are running them want us to be pacified brainwashed slaves dominated by surveillance states. But there are benign governments too.
wrong, the governments aren't destructive for their populations, the people are destructive for their populations.
as i said above, it's not the system it's the people in the system that make it good or bad.
besides, who gets to say what is in the 'best interest' of the people?
should we make cruise ships illegal because one might sink? or ban the use of trains because they might derail?
or better yet make cars illegal because they pollute the environment?
just because it isn't something that works for me or something I like doesn't give me the right to dictate to everyone else that they CAN'T have/use it
If I, for instance want to stand out in the middle of a corn field and blow myself up with a stick of dynamite that should be my prerogative. Doing the same in a crowded room, not so much. On the same note, if i want to say.. burn down my own house (as long as i don't defraud the insurance company in the process), that's my prerogative too, I paid for the house (that applies to OWNED houses, not rental properties of course).
I should have the right to deliberately cause damage, even death/destruction to MYSELF/My property if I so please (not that I personally WOULD), as long as I'm not harming or killing others. I don't want some holier than thou person coming up to me and saying I can't because they know better what's right for ME and they are going to force me to adhere to that.
Is it necessarily in my best interest to harm myself, NEVER, but should it matter? it's my life/body, my property, why should you care?
Nobody should be trying to say what is in someone else's best interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund
Very accurate, but you forgot the third type:
I am well aware that cannabis does little harm. I have experience of it, and I know that stoners either are lazy, or have their laziness magnified by getting high all the time, when they could be doing constructive things. Most alcoholists (and by that I mean anyone who ever consumes alcohol) don't let it get out of control either, but some people find it easier to get drunk than to deal with the problems in their lives. Maybe they would sort out their lives if they couldn't escape reality with alcohol or weed. Isn't it the right thing to do, then, to guide them on the right path?
it is in fact the right thing to do to guide someone on the right path, but doing so by blocking the other forks in the road, hiding the other directions and or holding a gun to their heads (metaphorically speaking) and forcing them on the right path ISN'T the right thing, you need to tell them the path is wrong, why it's wrong (or better yet, which path is the 'correct' path is the correct path) and let them decide for themselves, that being said, the 'right' path is and always has been subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund
Do you think I'm a hateful demon, jamison20000e?
I agree that education is important.
darn straight education is important... it's the MOST important part, the better educated a person is the harder it is to manipulate them.
panem et circenses anyone? keep the lowest common denominator preoccupied with other shallow meaningless tripe (such as sports, tv, the next iphone, etc..) and they won't have any motivation to question what really matters.
the short end is it comes down to PEOPLE, the best solution isn't to change government it's to motivate the lowest common denominator to become better educated and make more informed decisions, and stop making stupid rules like banning pot when we have more important issues to worry about, such as a crap economy, and more serious crimes like MURDER to worry about.
... the most efficient form of government (1)...
Do you think I'm a hateful demon, jamison20000e? (2)
I agree that education is important. (3)
Chaos! (JK I say education)
we all have it in us at any given point (here\now) and are learning from our mistakes, like me sometimes\(should be more I'm argumentative and human ) but if we blindly follow it's worse
but it's all about the money right?
Pot smokers are of all types. Any group can be stereotyped and or statistically flawed (or twisted in to it) in more ways than one...
Last edited by jamison20000e; 03-06-2013 at 02:26 PM.
Comparing the hierarchy of a website to governing society is apples to oranges all the way. If you honestly admire fascism you have plenty of opportunity to experience it first hand, but choose not to. If you honestly think it creates a great society you have plenty of examples to illustrate how it has in the past, but choose not to.
Just an afterthought, true education requires basic reading skills and an internet connection or library. People often think education is going to school and college.
You admit that the slick, conniving, underhanded, lying, cheating, greedy, power hungry, evil jerks -- who rule -- manipulate the lowest common denominator people -- who are the majority -- and yet you think democracy is a good idea!
Who's to say what's in the people's best interest? Science, logic, statistics, trial and error.
The benefit of cars, cruise ships and trains outweigh the risks. Motorcycles we can ban, though, and we should stop being so dependent on oil for gasoline. And we should stop destroying the environment, as you say! Cars are actually of dubious value.
You value personal freedom too much. Each individual is but a kog in the human machinery. Individuals have very little value on their own. It's not your life or body: you are a cell that is a part of a greater organism: mankind -- and it is your duty to do what you can to aid its future survival. Everyone who doesn't is useless... a cell that's not doing what it's supposed to. Therefore the government has the right to dictate that you should not use drugs recreatively. It's not oppression -- it's symbiosis.
Since it is natural, it is in your best interest to live a good and productive life as well, and raise healthy children.
Preferably we shouldn't have to force people to behave well; they should do it out of their own free will. But, as you say, many of them are uneducated and do not care. In the end it doesn't make a difference if they do it willingly or not, as long as they do it. We don't read in the history books that the Romans 2000 years ago were happy to build the Roman Empire and did it out of their own free will. What matters is that it was built.
Quote:
3. but it's all about the money right?
No!
Quote:
Comparing the hierarchy of a website to governing society is apples to oranges all the way.
It was an example that I picked because everyone here should be able to relate to it. Look anywhere for more: for example, in a corporation you have your boss and a CEO; in an airplane you have the captain and co-pilots; in an operation theatre you have the surgeon and nurses; in a university you have the principal and teachers. Why does that organizational structure naturally appear everywhere, if it's such a bad way to do things?
Quote:
If you honestly admire fascism you have plenty of opportunity to experience it first hand, but choose not to.
I'm not choosing not to: I vote for such a party where I live. Being a nationalist I can hardly leave my home country when there are things to improve here!
Quote:
If you honestly think it creates a great society you have plenty of examples to illustrate how it has in the past, but choose not to.
Actually, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany worked out extremely well until the war. They were great societies. Hitler turned that country from ruins to a superpower in four years, and it was certainly not thanks to cannabis or his concern for personal liberty.
I am too opinionated but: "The benefit of cars, cruise ships and trains outweigh the risks. Motorcycles we can ban, though," we can make electric bikes and drive them safely in mine! Don't need cars here...
I am too opinionated but: "The benefit of cars, cruise ships and trains outweigh the risks. Motorcycles we can ban, though," we can make electric bikes and drive them safely in mine! Don't need cars here...
Be careful. Have you seen the accident statistics?
Quote:
Like cancer and evolution of opinions "it is" "duty to do what you can to aid its future survival."
The earth continues to go round, whether it's the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man.
Quote:
Then why are more than 2/3rds left to rot?
Capitalism is rotten. A healthy society needs socialism.
I am well aware that cannabis does little harm. I have experience of it, and I know that stoners either are lazy, or have their laziness magnified by getting high all the time, when they could be doing constructive things. Most alcoholists (and by that I mean anyone who ever consumes alcohol) don't let it get out of control either, but some people find it easier to get drunk than to deal with the problems in their lives. Maybe they would sort out their lives if they couldn't escape reality with alcohol or weed. Isn't it the right thing to do, then, to guide them on the right path?
I agree, about the third type, but my analogy was a little more simple. The third group would have been included in my second group fo my point. My point was there's people whom understand that mistakes can be made by the government and others that don't.
I like to consider i fall into category three, but then the people in category two would all think that too, leaving all the people actually in category three unsure which group they truly are in.
What is the defenition of a 'stoner'. I indulge in cannabis sometimes, about once to twice a fortnight. I definitely don't take it every day, does this make me a stoner? It doesn't control my life; if i know i'll be driving, then i simply don't do it. I don't spend a fortune on it (because admittedly i don't go through shit loads). I'm unemployed, but have had the opportunity to get a job i really want recently and haven't touched the stuff for about a month and a half, because of this; so i'm clearly in control.
I never use the word 'stoner', so i'm just interested in the definition from someone who does.
Weed makes me extremely lethargic, so i'll agree to an extent about the laziness. I also have a few drinks quite often, and even take shrooms about four times a year for that matter, but i wouldn't say i do these things to escape my issues. In fact, if i know i'm having an issue with anything, i never take shrooms. I take these things as an enjoyment of life when there's nothing needed to be done (by this i mean work or jobs around the house). Of course i enjoy life in many other sobre ways too; personally i enjoy drawing and growing tree amongst other things too, but other times i just like to kick back and listen to music with bloodshot eyes.
I don't see how one pleasure is any different to another. So many people just sit in front of the tv hour after hour; from your prospective, how are what these people doing any better than someone enjoying laying back enjoying a high.
The garbage they send on TV is another thing that corrupts society. In my opinion America's Funniest Home Videos is a very strong argument for compulsory sterilization.
You may be able to use it responsibly, but there are a lot of people who don't. It sucks that your freedom has to be limited because other people screw up, but how should we write a law that distinguishes responsible use from irresponsible? Surely you can live without it for the greater good?
As for the word "stoner", I normally say "junkie" but I thought "stoner" would be less offensive. If you smoke a cigar once a month, then I call you a smoker. You definitely qualify.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
Nah, I'm sure you are right, but they would probably have invented it anyway. I doubt dope is a prerequisite for the PC.
