jmog;1542983 wrote:Sorry justin, but you've gone off the deep end here.

1. People know that drugs are illegal before they use/sell/manufacture them even if they don't believe they should be.
2. So, if they try to attack the police coming after them and get killed, that's not murder.
3. If they get arrested, it is their own fault. It also is absurd to call it racist as regardless of race people are getting arrested for drugs.

Zero people have been killed by raids on the wrong house?

Murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475

justincredible;1543019 wrote:Murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475

That's very unfortunate, but IMO the amount of people saved by the "war on drugs" far outweighs those who were unfortunately and unfairly hurt.

Rand Paul agrees that it unfairly targets minorities.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/24/rand-paul-marijuana-arrests-column/2452259/

ohiobucks1;1543023 wrote:That's very unfortunate, but IMO the amount of people saved by the "war on drugs" far outweighs those who were unfortunately and unfairly hurt.

Tell that to that guys family.

ohiobucks1;1543023 wrote:That's very unfortunate, but IMO the amount of people saved by the "war on drugs" far outweighs those who were unfortunately and unfairly hurt.

OTOH, the people thrown into cages instead of getting treatment, a more humane AND effective AND cost efficient strategy...

"Sorry folks. But it was totally worth it."

queencitybuckeye;1543026 wrote:OTOH, the people thrown into cages instead of getting treatment, a more humane AND effective AND cost efficient strategy...

Do you believe we through government we should be treating people to get them off of drugs? This is a little different position than drugs being legalized or decriminalized.

queencitybuckeye;1543026 wrote:OTOH, the people thrown into cages instead of getting treatment, a more humane AND effective AND cost efficient strategy...

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I agree with how everybody is treated. Some, I believe should be behind bars. Some, OTOH should be treated with outpatient programs.

And believe it or not, that is how many of the statutes are being reworded to work things. 10 years from now, most drug related offenders (not sellers) will never see prison time as more and more utilitarian millennials take over for the current retributive old ass idiots.

Con_Alma;1543028 wrote:Do you believe we through government we should be treating people to get them off of drugs? This is a little different position than drugs being legalized or decriminalized.

To use your argument, "should" is based on the will of the people. All I know about it, based on there being other places in the world, is that it works better both in terms of efficiency and effectiveness than incarceration.

"Unfairly targeting minorities"...lol

justincredible;1543019 wrote:Murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475

Really? Exact quote:

Resident Fired First

Police say her husband fired first with a sawed-off shotgun and they responded. He was shot at least three times and died later at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

Okay, so there was a wrong house picked...does that give the residents right to fire at the police?

OSH;1543120 wrote:Really? Exact quote:



Okay, so there was a wrong house picked...does that give the residents right to fire at the police?

That's not a good example. I'll find the article later, but there was a case where the cops had the correct address on the warrant but went to the wrong address. They served a no knock warrant and killed a guy in the house who shot at them. A no knock on a house where they have no warrant should be nothing but a home invasion.

queencitybuckeye;1543035 wrote:To use your argument, "should" is based on the will of the people. All I know about it, based on there being other places in the world, is that it works better both in terms of efficiency and effectiveness than incarceration.

...or the people's representatives. What do you mean by it "works" better. It kid of depends on the desired outcome I guess.

You be cool for 20 hours and I'll pay ya 20 grand.

DeyDurkie5;1542948 wrote:This thread is about incest. Please thread ban all involved on the drug talk.

True. All this drug and law talk is making me lose my incest boner. :eek:

Con_Alma;1543134 wrote:...or the people's representatives. What do you mean by it "works" better. It kid of depends on the desired outcome I guess.

It gets people off drugs at a lower cost than locking them in cages.

That's what I thought. It doesn't seem to me that's what people want. If I understand others correctly, it seems that people want them legalized so they can use them and not be criminalized in the process.

Curly J;1543140 wrote:True. All this drug and law talk is making me lose my incest boner. :eek:

Noted, Tagged, Mentioned, Notified, Repped, and so on.

SportsAndLady;1542689 wrote:But you seem to keep bringing up my "assumptions" I am simply saying in the case they have a child, that child is going to be fucked up to all eternity.

And this is one such assumption I'm talking about. You can't know that. Neither can anyone. It's possible, to be sure. I just don't think the situation is as dire as you seem to, and I don't think it's important to report someone because something is illegal and I think it's disturbing.

SportsAndLady;1542689 wrote:Someone needs to say something to the police. They're fucking brothers and sisters for christ sake. They should not be fucking each other. Period.

Nobody's saying they should be.

SportsAndLady;1542689 wrote:Also, drunk drivers don't hurt anybody until they crash, right? Does a drunk driver going the speed limit and driving correctly, wrong? By your same argument, drunk driving isn't bad because you can't assume they hurt anybody. Right?

It's irresponsible, but that's not entirely what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't rat out every single person I know who drives while they're over the legal limit. Do you?

SportsAndLady;1542709 wrote:You're cool with brothers fucking their sisters?

I don't think ANYONE said that.

SportsAndLady;1542710 wrote:Make it happen, Otrap. Make America better.

I think an America where people are allowed to make choices independent of the permission of the majority, provided they don't directly harm another's body or property, is a better America.

Pretty sure the people in Salem were trying to make America better by killing all the "witches."

I Wear Pants;1542724 wrote:I mean I think it's gross but I don't have any reason to want them arrested unless someone is being hurt. Even the likelihood of birth defects if they would have a kid isn't a good argument for that unless you also want to arrest anyone who has a high likelihood of having birth issues with a child and still goes ahead with it. To be clear, I don't think brothers and sisters should have kids.

I pretty much share this sentiment. I think what they're doing is sick ... nasty. But I think the same thing about what goes on in your bedroom (and I'd guess you'd think the same of mine, though I can't know), and I'm cool with you being allowed to do it. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't deny anyone rights or freedoms.

justincredible;1542743 wrote:I am fine with consenting adults doing whatever they want in their bedroom. Even if it is creepy as shit. They aren't trampling on my rights, why should IGAF?

Because GAF is what Americans do. We GAF about stuff that isn't our business. If we didn't Entertainment Tonight and tabloids wouldn't be a thing.

jmog;1542755 wrote:If I was the ex-husband of the sister, I would be fighting for full custody with no visitation, because you know he knows what is going on. The incest would be front and center of the custody hearings.

I believe that's going on, or at least it sounds like it's being threatened.

jmog;1542776 wrote:Your assumptions are off still. 1. It is slightly less than 50/50 that a child from incest will have any problems mentally/physically at all. Yes, that is a HUGE number compared to less than 7% of babies from non-related parents. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that the child will be impared (and many of the 50% are slight problems).

Compared to the rest of the population, it's pretty common in some Amish communities. I went to Kindergarten with one such case. My classmate's parents were first cousins. She was cross-eyed, but otherwise, she was fully functional.

jmog;1542755 wrote:2. Maybe one of them are 'fixed'? Maybe they can't have kids anymore. It doesn't make it 'right' as it is still morally wrong in my opinion, but would that change your "call the cops now!" attitude? If this were me and it were my family, I would definitely try to get the kids out of the situation and let the adults be idiots. If I was in OTraps position, of barely knowing them, I wouldn't get involved either. Trust me, I guarantee you the exes of both of them are VERY involved right now, especially with their own kids involved.

Well, he doesn't have any with his ex-wife, and she's apparently already found a "new man." However, from the sound of it, the sister's ex-husband is going after sole custody with no visitation.

I do wonder how much it would mess the kids up to be raised by mom and Uncle Joey, but I honestly hope they do lose the kids, as I'd rather not risk finding out.

SportsAndLady;1542804 wrote:I'm not saying my attitude about this is "call the cops now!" Just saying if I was in otraps situation I would call the cops for sure. Wouldn't get involved just would make an anonymous call to the cops. The less incest out there, the better.

Well, the less alcoholism out there, the better as well. I just don't feel as though it's my place to get involved in the issue in that way, anonymously or otherwise. I get why you feel like the less it happens, the better. However, with people's lives in play, and with me knowing them very little (until a month ago, I may have talked to this guy twice in the last seven years), I'd prefer to have as little influence as possible on the situation.

ohiobucks1;1542822 wrote:You guys are missing the biggest point off all of this, by saying that because it's not effecting you that you should not GAF. American's criminal law system was built with both retribution and utilitarianism in mind. However, it is mostly utilitarian in common law. What that means is that our criminal system was established to prevent people from doing things that go against what we deem to be against our conscious/social norms. Anything that makes society "cringe" has statutes made to criminalize it. Incest is one of those offenses. Incest may not effect YOU per se, but if 99% of you say that it is absolutely wrong, then it should be punished. That is the ideal our system is built on. It's the same argument that people that are pro-marijuana are currently (rather successfully) making throughout the country. Since society does not deem Mary-jane to be "Bad" anymore, it shouldn't be according to utilitarians.

There is a problem with this notion. First, it undercuts any justification for social or moral reformers. Martin Luther King, for example, wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if he simply needed society to change its majority view without any moral justification for doing so. Without a reason, or at least the perception of a reason, the moral reformer has not grounds.

Also, it's worth pointing out that with this ideology you're asserting, the majority is justified in oppressing a given minority.

Just as well, in order to say that something "should" be punished, you have to appeal to an objective ethic of some sort. Under this utilitarian view, that isn't possible, so at best, one would say something "will" be punished if, and only if, the public adopts a utilitarian form of developing societal laws. As such, to suggest a "should" would be hypocritical under a utilitarian society.

Finally, there are plenty of things that society deems wrong, and would admit as such, and yet would never be considered for legislation to make them illegal.

ohiobucks1;1542831 wrote:Your belief is un-american . But seriously, that is how/why laws should/are supposed to be made. Does doing drugs effect another person? No, but it's still criminalized. Why? Because it goes against our societal norms.

I would contest that his view is not un-American, unless we submit that the phrasing of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means something other than what it says in the Declaration, which was penned by the founders of America.

DeyDurkie5;1542837 wrote:This doesn't surprise me that Otrap knows these people. He's a religious nut with a porn addiction. That just screams "i know people that fuck their families and it turns me on" BTW, a dude fucking his sister is just not right. Regardless of how you feel, it should be reported IMO.

"Know" is a strong term. Like I said earlier, I've only spoken to him now maybe three or four times within the last seven years.

I'm not sure what makes me a "nut," but I suppose you can say what you'd like.

I do have a porn addiction, but I haven't looked at it for years, so I'd hardly think that to be relevant.

And anyone who is familiar with the Amish community is probably at least acquainted with a couple who is, at a level closer than the average citizen, related.

Doesn't mean it turns you on, though. Not sure where that came from. Freudian slip, perhaps?

I agree that it's not right, and maybe something will happen.

Wally;1542851 wrote:Gay sex makes me cringe. How does that compare to incest?

Based on one theory, if enough of society feels the same way, it needs to be illegal, and people need to be punished for it.

Con_Alma;1542864 wrote:Why would anyone have to pretend? It was a reflection of the desire at the time it was put into place. It's not uncommon for a mass majority to be required to change such laws.

However, they do so because they see their prior view as wrong, and it is almost always led by moral reform philosophy. It's virtually never on a whim.

I Wear Pants;1542873 wrote:So what is an unjust law in your mind?

He states one at odds with our stated civil rights. The problem is, that isn't reflected by the utilitarianism he helped himself to before.

I Wear Pants;1542900 wrote:False, you'll not find many people (perhaps not any) who created or advocate for the law saying that the reason for it is that we just, really need to punish people that do drugs. They're bad and they need to pay for doing drugs by being arrested, with deadly force if needed, and locked in a cage for decades. No, the law was and is intended to protect the public health from the effects of addiction and the violence that comes with the drug trade. The problem is that the law has not reduced addiction or use and has increased the violence while at the same time spending massive sums of money. You cannot spin that as a success. It is a complete failure.

/discussion

justincredible;1542914 wrote:I just can't fathom how someone can view legislation that has violently murdered fellow citizens, locked millions in cages (to potentially be violently assaulted), because "drugs are bad" as a success. It absolutely boggles my mind.

It seems we've regressed since the prohibition era. At least then, we figured out it wasn't working and cut our losses.

Con_Alma;1542939 wrote:We are a nation of laws. I'd rather not have law enforcement officials or judges choosing which laws to enforce and which not to. If we don't want people locked up for using illegal narcotics we simply need to change the law.

I'd just as soon treat legislators the same way, for the most part.

gut;1542954 wrote:It's 5% the children's fault

Repping this.

Mulva;1542972 wrote:Congressional approval ratings strongly suggest this belief no longer exists.

Agreed. At this point, I think it's apathy more than anything else.

ohiobucks1;1543023 wrote:That's very unfortunate, but IMO the amount of people saved by the "war on drugs" far outweighs those who were unfortunately and unfairly hurt.

And how many people have been "saved" by the war on drugs? And what do you constitute as being "saved?"

And under an espousal of utilitarianism, how does this mesh, when the majority in most polls votes for less drug enforcement?

Ought we (I know "ought" can be a dangerous word) revert to the banning of alcohol as well? Might it not do the same? Isn't it likely, given the similarities to drugs?

O-Trap;1543226 wrote:And this is one such assumption I'm talking about. You can't know that. Neither can anyone. It's possible, to be sure. I just don't think the situation is as dire as you seem to, and I don't think it's important to report someone because something is illegal and I think it's disturbing.



Nobody's saying they should be.



It's irresponsible, but that's not entirely what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't rat out every single person I know who drives while they're over the legal limit. Do you?



I don't think ANYONE said that.



I think an America where people are allowed to make choices independent of the permission of the majority, provided they don't directly harm another's body or property, is a better America.

Pretty sure the people in Salem were trying to make America better by killing all the "witches."



I pretty much share this sentiment. I think what they're doing is sick ... nasty. But I think the same thing about what goes on in your bedroom (and I'd guess you'd think the same of mine, though I can't know), and I'm cool with you being allowed to do it. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't deny anyone rights or freedoms.



Because GAF is what Americans do. We GAF about stuff that isn't our business. If we didn't Entertainment Tonight and tabloids wouldn't be a thing.



I believe that's going on, or at least it sounds like it's being threatened.



Compared to the rest of the population, it's pretty common in some Amish communities. I went to Kindergarten with one such case. My classmate's parents were first cousins. She was cross-eyed, but otherwise, she was fully functional.



Well, he doesn't have any with his ex-wife, and she's apparently already found a "new man." However, from the sound of it, the sister's ex-husband is going after sole custody with no visitation.

I do wonder how much it would mess the kids up to be raised by mom and Uncle Joey, but I honestly hope they do lose the kids, as I'd rather not risk finding out.



Well, the less alcoholism out there, the better as well. I just don't feel as though it's my place to get involved in the issue in that way, anonymously or otherwise. I get why you feel like the less it happens, the better. However, with people's lives in play, and with me knowing them very little (until a month ago, I may have talked to this guy twice in the last seven years), I'd prefer to have as little influence as possible on the situation.



There is a problem with this notion. First, it undercuts any justification for social or moral reformers. Martin Luther King, for example, wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if he simply needed society to change its majority view without any moral justification for doing so. Without a reason, or at least the perception of a reason, the moral reformer has not grounds.

Also, it's worth pointing out that with this ideology you're asserting, the majority is justified in oppressing a given minority.

Just as well, in order to say that something "should" be punished, you have to appeal to an objective ethic of some sort. Under this utilitarian view, that isn't possible, so at best, one would say something "will" be punished if, and only if, the public adopts a utilitarian form of developing societal laws. As such, to suggest a "should" would be hypocritical under a utilitarian society.

Finally, there are plenty of things that society deems wrong, and would admit as such, and yet would never be considered for legislation to make them illegal.



I would contest that his view is not un-American, unless we submit that the phrasing of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means something other than what it says in the Declaration, which was penned by the founders of America.



"Know" is a strong term. Like I said earlier, I've only spoken to him now maybe three or four times within the last seven years.

I'm not sure what makes me a "nut," but I suppose you can say what you'd like.

I do have a porn addiction, but I haven't looked at it for years, so I'd hardly think that to be relevant.

And anyone who is familiar with the Amish community is probably at least acquainted with a couple who is, at a level closer than the average citizen, related.

Doesn't mean it turns you on, though. Not sure where that came from. Freudian slip, perhaps?

I agree that it's not right, and maybe something will happen.



Based on one theory, if enough of society feels the same way, it needs to be illegal, and people need to be punished for it.

OTrap'd if I ever seen it. That's if you cared cause he does.

Curly J;1543239 wrote:OTrap'd if I ever seen it. That's if you cared cause he does.

It'd been awhile since I'd had to split up a post into two because of the 10,000-character limit.

However, what are you going to do when you leave the computer all day?

O-Trap;1543226 wrote:And this is one such assumption I'm talking about. You can't know that. Neither can anyone. It's possible, to be sure. I just don't think the situation is as dire as you seem to, and I don't think it's important to report someone because something is illegal and I think it's disturbing.



Nobody's saying they should be.



It's irresponsible, but that's not entirely what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't rat out every single person I know who drives while they're over the legal limit. Do you?



I don't think ANYONE said that.



I think an America where people are allowed to make choices independent of the permission of the majority, provided they don't directly harm another's body or property, is a better America.

Pretty sure the people in Salem were trying to make America better by killing all the "witches."



I pretty much share this sentiment. I think what they're doing is sick ... nasty. But I think the same thing about what goes on in your bedroom (and I'd guess you'd think the same of mine, though I can't know), and I'm cool with you being allowed to do it. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't deny anyone rights or freedoms.



Because GAF is what Americans do. We GAF about stuff that isn't our business. If we didn't Entertainment Tonight and tabloids wouldn't be a thing.



I believe that's going on, or at least it sounds like it's being threatened.



Compared to the rest of the population, it's pretty common in some Amish communities. I went to Kindergarten with one such case. My classmate's parents were first cousins. She was cross-eyed, but otherwise, she was fully functional.



Well, he doesn't have any with his ex-wife, and she's apparently already found a "new man." However, from the sound of it, the sister's ex-husband is going after sole custody with no visitation.

I do wonder how much it would mess the kids up to be raised by mom and Uncle Joey, but I honestly hope they do lose the kids, as I'd rather not risk finding out.



Well, the less alcoholism out there, the better as well. I just don't feel as though it's my place to get involved in the issue in that way, anonymously or otherwise. I get why you feel like the less it happens, the better. However, with people's lives in play, and with me knowing them very little (until a month ago, I may have talked to this guy twice in the last seven years), I'd prefer to have as little influence as possible on the situation.



There is a problem with this notion. First, it undercuts any justification for social or moral reformers. Martin Luther King, for example, wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if he simply needed society to change its majority view without any moral justification for doing so. Without a reason, or at least the perception of a reason, the moral reformer has not grounds.

Also, it's worth pointing out that with this ideology you're asserting, the majority is justified in oppressing a given minority.

Just as well, in order to say that something "should" be punished, you have to appeal to an objective ethic of some sort. Under this utilitarian view, that isn't possible, so at best, one would say something "will" be punished if, and only if, the public adopts a utilitarian form of developing societal laws. As such, to suggest a "should" would be hypocritical under a utilitarian society.

Finally, there are plenty of things that society deems wrong, and would admit as such, and yet would never be considered for legislation to make them illegal.



I would contest that his view is not un-American, unless we submit that the phrasing of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means something other than what it says in the Declaration, which was penned by the founders of America.



"Know" is a strong term. Like I said earlier, I've only spoken to him now maybe three or four times within the last seven years.

I'm not sure what makes me a "nut," but I suppose you can say what you'd like.

I do have a porn addiction, but I haven't looked at it for years, so I'd hardly think that to be relevant.

And anyone who is familiar with the Amish community is probably at least acquainted with a couple who is, at a level closer than the average citizen, related.

Doesn't mean it turns you on, though. Not sure where that came from. Freudian slip, perhaps?

I agree that it's not right, and maybe something will happen.



Based on one theory, if enough of society feels the same way, it needs to be illegal, and people need to be punished for it.

O-Trap;1543227 wrote:However, they do so because they see their prior view as wrong, and it is almost always led by moral reform philosophy. It's virtually never on a whim.



He states one at odds with our stated civil rights. The problem is, that isn't reflected by the utilitarianism he helped himself to before.



/discussion



It seems we've regressed since the prohibition era. At least then, we figured out it wasn't working and cut our losses.



I'd just as soon treat legislators the same way, for the most part.



Repping this.



Agreed. At this point, I think it's apathy more than anything else.



And how many people have been "saved" by the war on drugs? And what do you constitute as being "saved?"

And under an espousal of utilitarianism, how does this mesh, when the majority in most polls votes for less drug enforcement?

Ought we (I know "ought" can be a dangerous word) revert to the banning of alcohol as well? Might it not do the same? Isn't it likely, given the similarities to drugs?

justincredible;1543015 wrote:Zero people have been killed by raids on the wrong house?

Invalid argument, you could make the claim that murder should be legal since there have been people killed in a "raid" of a suspected murderer but the police got the wrong house.

It is such a small percentage that as an argument it does not hold much water.