All the Taboo Subjects Rolled Into One Discussion!

[Dan]

I'm not here to offend anyone, and I'm not starting this to be mean, or have this become a place of argument, I just think we're all so taboo on this subjects, and so ashamed of what we think when we shouldn't be, we need to be tolerant of other people, and that starts with learning what people believe.

Okay, the only rule here is to be civil, but this seems to be a healthy place for debate, and if not debate, I think this is something we all need to open up about, if only on here.

1. Gay Marriage- For it completely, the fact that it's not legal everywhere is kind of disgusting to me, that people make it their personal concern to take away human rights, especially when all it is is marriage, it's not like it's affecting anyone else.

2. Religion-Atheist, can't explain the Big Bang and I'm okay with that, I just don't believe there is or ever was a God, and it's as simple as that.

3. Abortion- Legal, but obviously only up until a certain point, I'd have to do more research to determine what the cut off point would be, but the way I see it, a fetus has life, but not consciousness, nobody cries when you mow a lawn or anything.

4. Legalizing Drugs- Completely for it too, I don't do any drugs, but that is my choice, and it should be others' choice if they want to do drugs or not. The main scare is that it would make everyone want to do it, but it wouldn't. There are also a few things that people should think about: it's almost always easier for a minor to get heroin or cocaine than a pack of cigarettes or a beer because drugs are illegal for everyone, and because you have to go to a dealer, it's not monitored, whereas buying cigarettes or something, you're IDed. People also think that the crime rate would rise drastically, if anything, it would decline. Think of the prohibition, the banning of alcohol. That was the start of mob crime, because they started by making alcohol illegally, and then that died out when the legalized alcohol again, I feel like the same thing would happen here. Not only that, but then we could spend more money on saving people, as opposed to catching those evil, evil drug dealers.

So those are the main 4 that I can think of, and that are definitely hot topics, but if you have more, feel free to bring them up. But please, be civil, notice I'm not insulting anyone from a different school of thought, I think that's how it should be. I just feel like this is stuff we shouldn't be afraid to talk about.

[The Black Knight]

1.dgaf
2.dgaf
3.dgaf
4.dgaf

[Dan Augusta]

There are already several threads about all four of those topics. At least on this website, people don't seem to be "ashamed of what they think" in the slightest.

[Joe Altamore]

Oddly enough I agree with all your views on the topics in question. Rather liberal aren't you?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

1. Against - Mainly for economic reasons (I am a Christian, but I'm aware that that fact should not be directly allowed to impact political decisions). Marriage is state sponsored primarly because the state has a vested interest. IE the production of more citizens. Hence the central reason why the state recognises marriage and provides economic benefits. It isn't a human rights argument because marriage, after the fashion you are referring to, is not a human right.

 

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

 

2. I'm a Christian. There are several reasons. Namely the evidence, but also the failure of certian parts of a purely atheistic worldview. C S Lewis puts it a very good way

 

"If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees."

 

That's one of the biggest rubs for me. The brain, if it evolved in the way that many athiests would have us believed, is engineered for survival. Not for truth seeking. So if I accept the athiest world view, I have no reason to believe that anything I believe or they believe is true. It is just what evolution thinks is best for my brain.

 

3. Against - The main reason being that any definition of human life that we come up with (sentience, when the heart starts beating etc) seems rather arbitary. It is human (it has human DNA), it is a complete human (not simply an organ or tissue etc) and it is alive.

 

4. Legalising drugs would be a very bad idea. While I grant you we're not in the best of shapes now, the main reason we don't is the shear ammount of economic inefficency that we would encounter if we did. To give an example, though Dr Nut, a British Government scientist suggested that Cannabis be downgraded from a class B to class C drug, lots of people have criticised his research because it did not include samples of the much stronger and more potent varities of cannabis that are out there at the moment. Some of these are fairly widely reported to be capable of incapacitating someone for three days, if they are taken. Also, even with a legal framework in place, it would not stop all drug related crime. Alcohol is perfectly legal, and yet there's still plenty of crimes related to that about the place. Furthermore, the ammount of addiction possibility with several drugs makes crime more likly if they are all deregulated. I can see the argument for deregulating some, but far far from all. 

[Übereil]

Marriage is state sponsored primarly because the state has a vested interest. IE the production of more citizens.

Maybe 50 years ago, but that was 50 years ago. Nowadays we support production of more citizens with... child support! Not all married pepole recieve child support, since not all married pepole have children. Instead marriage is about helping pepole deal with relationship stuff (like inheritance, ownership, what happens if one of the spouses ends up in a hospital, what happens in case of separation etc).

Which is why I do support gay marriage - gays are in relationships too.

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.

Then I guess they don't.

That's one of the biggest rubs for me. The brain, if it evolved in the way that many athiests would have us believed, is engineered for survival. Not for truth seeking. So if I accept the athiest world view, I have no reason to believe that anything I believe or they believe is true.

Then I guess you shouldn't.

The main reason being that any definition of human life that we come up with (sentience, when the heart starts beating etc) seems rather arbitary. It is human (it has human DNA), it is a complete human (not simply an organ or tissue etc) and it is alive.

Why is it meaningful to protect just because it has human DNA and is alive by biological standards? That definition is as arbitrary as any other definition.

Legalising drugs would be a very bad idea. While I grant you we're not in the best of shapes now, the main reason we don't is the shear ammount of economic inefficency that we would encounter if we did.

Legalizing drugs doesn't seem to increase drug use though (just look at Portugal). Given that, where would the inefficiency stem from?

Also, even with a legal framework in place, it would not stop all drug related crime.

Most of the illegal drug related crimes stems from the very fact that those drugs are illegal, since most of the crimes associated with illegal drugs are commited by the producer and not the consumer. For instance, you don't see alcohol producers and sellers engaging in gang wars.

Sure, there will still be shop lifting to get money to score drugs, but keeping drugs illegal hasn't exactly managed to remove/reduce that kind of crime anyway. And it isn't drug addicts shoplifting to afford drugs that's more or less destroyed Mexican society.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Maybe 50 years ago, but that was 50 years ago. Nowadays we support production of more citizens with... child support!

 

Yes, and the state can REALLY afford to do that on mass. Newsflash. The way the state supports families via marriage is not by giving them money, but by allowing them to keep more of their own. 

 

Instead marriage is about helping pepole deal with relationship stuff (like inheritance, ownership, what happens if one of the spouses ends up in a hospital, what happens in case of separation etc).

 

If that truely were the case, then the civil partnerships bill passed in the UK should have had more options for other types of relationships for other dependents. In the UK there have been several (mostly elderly) people who want the type of legal benefits a civil partnership would offer have been turned away because they are not Gay (elderly spinsters living together is a fairly common one). This strikes me as absurd. If the idea of gay marriage were truely pragmatic, it would do more to help others too.

Then I guess they don't.

 

Exactly, so why should we trust what any atheist says to have any bearing in reality. After all, by their logic, their own brains are not designed for truth, but for survival.

 

Why is it meaningful to protect just because it has human DNA and is alive by biological standards? That definition is as arbitrary as any other definition.

 

No, its fairly concrete. All the other definitions are based upon fairly debatable constructs. "Its alive when it's heart beats", "its alive when it has brain activity" etc. People can be alive without either of those for quite some while. The idea of human genes and human body are concrete. We can say yes or no to those.

 

 

 

Legalizing drugs doesn't seem to increase drug use though (just look at Portugal). Given that, where would the inefficiency stem from?

 

I don't know why you think that, but you are wrong. Almost all major drug use in Portugal has gone up

 

Lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%

Lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%

Lifetime use of cocaine more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%

Lifetime use of heroin nearly doubled, from 0.7% to 1.1%

Lifetime use of Ecstacy increased from 0.7% to 1.3%

 

http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf

 

The only positive stats to come out of the Portugal scenario have been a decreased HIV diagnosis rate among drug users by 71%. Other than that, things are not getting better. While it has been argued that this could be linked to the lessening stigma of drug use as a result of decriminalisation, this has been a consistant pattern, and it is hard to see how that argument can work for the number of years involved.

 

Most of the illegal drug related crimes stems from the very fact that those drugs are illegal, since most of the crimes associated with illegal drugs are commited by the producer and not the consumer. For instance, you don't see alcohol producers and sellers engaging in gang wars.

 

Yes, but that's not the point. If we make production legal and consumption illegal, what are we going to use it for?

Sure, there will still be shop lifting to get money to score drugs, but keeping drugs illegal hasn't exactly managed to remove/reduce that kind of crime anyway. And it isn't drug addicts shoplifting to afford drugs that's more or less destroyed Mexican society.

 

I've never understood this argument. By that logic its like saying "well because the UK declared war on Germany, that's why they're being bombed. If we just ended it, we'd be much better off". Of course the current stategy of the war on drugs is not that good, but that isn't the same thing as saying we should just quit fighting. I've just read a very good book called "Shooting up" which gives some very realistic suggestions as to how to deal with the drug wars and win them, therby stopping consumption in the west significently without decriminalising.

[Übereil]

Yes, and the state can REALLY afford to do that on mass. Newsflash. The way the state supports families via marriage is not by giving them money, but by allowing them to keep more of their own.

Tax breaks of married pepole discriminates against unmarried pepole. So stop that immediately.

If that truely were the case, then the civil partnerships bill passed in the UK should have had more options for other types of relationships for other dependents.

You'll get no objections from me. Marriage laws hasn't really adapted to the way pepole nowadays view families, which is a problem. Hopefully it will catch up eventually, though.

Exactly, so why should we trust what any atheist says to have any bearing in reality.

That applies to you too, you know.

As for why you should trust that what you see actually somehow is connected to reality... that's way too big for me to comment on. To even get something of a proper answer would require an A4 page.

No, its fairly concrete. All the other definitions are based upon fairly debatable constructs. "Its alive when it's heart beats", "its alive when it has brain activity" etc. People can be alive without either of those for quite some while. The idea of human genes and human body are concrete. We can say yes or no to those.

That's not the arbitrary part. The arbitrary part is about the life being meaningful to protect just because those things are there.

I don't know why you think that, but you are wrong. Almost all major drug use in Portugal has gone up

Yeah, but the trend is the same as in other countries, so that can't be attributed to the new drug policy. (correlation isn't causalisation) See this study, page 9 for a comparision between Portugal, Spain and Italy. On page 8 the study even says this:

Portuguese trends largely mimicked the trends observed in neighbouring Spain and Italy (see Tables 3 and 4). All three nations reported increases in lifetime prevalence of hashish, amphetamines and cocaine as well as increases in the last year prevalence of cannabis and cocaine use. The congruity with the other data from neighbouring nations provides little evidence that any apparent increases were directly attributable to the decriminalization.

So yeah, drug use has gone up. But it hasn't gone up due to legalizing drugs.

The only positive stats to come out of the Portugal scenario have been a decreased HIV diagnosis rate among drug users by 71%.

Addicts are also more inclined to voluntarily seek treatment, which is another plus. And if you read below my quote above from page 8 of that study I linked you can see that there are indications that problematic drug use is declining.

Yes, but that's not the point.

That's certanly my point. Legalizing drugs won't get rid of all crimes associated with drugs, but it will get rid of a lot of it.

I've never understood this argument.

It's quite simple: it's the exact same reason they ended prohibition in America - the costs for keeping drugs illegal far surpassed those of keeping it legal. Use was aproximately the same but there was also smuggling, gang wars and poorly malfunctioned booze killing the users. Keeping it illegal built and fed a black market with all the problems that comes with it. Legalizing drug production and distribution will make a lot of seriously unwellcome behavior pointless.

Another angle is that the biggest problems associated with drugs aren't those we see in the west, it's those we see in Mexico.

Of course the current stategy of the war on drugs is not that good, but that isn't the same thing as saying we should just quit fighting.

Who said anything about quitting fighting? Portugal hasn't just started ignoring drug use since 2001, quite the contrary.

I've just read a very good book called "Shooting up" which gives some very realistic suggestions as to how to deal with the drug wars and win them, therby stopping consumption in the west significently without decriminalising.

Examples of these suggestions would be nice. :)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Tax breaks of married pepole discriminates against unmarried pepole. So stop that immediately.

 

Yes, the same way that tax breaks for certian industries the government wants to encourage discriminates against industries that arn't those ones. Newsflash. There is a reason the government encourages these things. Because it is in their interest. 

That applies to you too, you know.

 

No it doesn't. I don't believe that my brain was the sole product of random convergence.

 

That's not the arbitrary part. The arbitrary part is about the life being meaningful to protect just because those things are there.

 

Those are the things that are there which mean we protect life when it has been born. We offer protection to things that have human DNA, that are biologically alive and that are an entire organisim rather than a tissue. I'm using the same standard we used for the born. I fail to see why it shouldn't apply to the non born.

 

Yeah, but the trend is the same as in other countries, so that can't be attributed to the new drug policy. (correlation isn't causalisation) See this study, page 9 for a comparision between Portugal, Spain and Italy. On page 8 the study even says this:

 

So then its worse. Legalisation has done NO good, because the same thing that is happening in other countries is happening in the legalised one. What's the point of legalising then if it's not going to improve anything?

That's certanly my point. Legalizing drugs won't get rid of all crimes associated with drugs, but it will get rid of a lot of it.

 

Yes, it will get rid of the crime because there are less offences to commit. It won't however solve anything.  

 

Another angle is that the biggest problems associated with drugs aren't those we see in the west, it's those we see in Mexico.

 

Well then isn't it fairly clear that its not legalisation thats the issue. If both in the US and Mexico drugs are illegal and yet only in Mexico are there these massive problems you speak of, the conclusion is that its not legalisation that would make this better. Clearly there must be other factors at work. 

Who said anything about quitting fighting? Portugal hasn't just started ignoring drug use since 2001, quite the contrary.

 

Examples of these suggestions would be nice. :)

 

I don't really have time to engage with the entire book, but the main one is economic insentive. IE provide alternative markets for the resouces created.

 

[Übereil]

Yes, the same way that tax breaks for certian industries the government wants to encourage discriminates against industries that arn't those ones.

The difference is that we have no reason to promote marriage. Child bearing? Sure, that's why we have - child support. If you want to give parents tax breaks, give tax breaks to parents rather than to married pepole.

If you want to subsidie child bearing, subsidie child bearing. Subsidising marriage in order to promote child bearing is like subsidising attending sporting events to promote physical activity.

No it doesn't. I don't believe that my brain was the sole product of random convergence.

Erm... If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, and this means the thought of those minds shouldn't have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees, then this goes for all minds, yours included. Whether you belive it or not.

Those are the things that are there which mean we protect life when it has been born. We offer protection to things that have human DNA, that are biologically alive and that are an entire organisim rather than a tissue.

But why does it's DNA have to be human? Why not include cows into this as well? Why not include all beings with DNA? Singelling out human DNA is arbitrary.

I'm using the same standard we used for the born. I fail to see why it shouldn't apply to the non born.

That's because you don't understand why we should offer it to full grown humans in the first place.

So then its worse. Legalisation has done NO good, because the same thing that is happening in other countries is happening in the legalised one. What's the point of legalising then if it's not going to improve anything?

...because it actually HAS done good? And why keep it illegal if keeping it illegal doesn't do any good? If legalizing does nothing regarding drug use then Mexico is burning for no reason whatsoever - since keeping it illegal protects no one.

Yes, it will get rid of the crime because there are less offences to commit. It won't however solve anything.

You saying nothing happened to the distribution side of Alcohol when the prohibition was removed?

If both in the US and Mexico drugs are illegal and yet only in Mexico are there these massive problems you speak of, the conclusion is that its not legalisation that would make this better.

Then again, if you compare the distribution problems associated with Alocol with those associated with other problems, it suddenly makes sence again. Especially if you consider that the same problems was associated with Alcohol during the prohibition days.

[Nelson]

Don't we in The Netherlands (also known as Sodom and Gomorrah) have a lower usage rate for cannabis compared to the proud and free USA, while we do have a history of decriminalised cannabis use?

[Josh Braun]

That's one of the biggest rubs for me. The brain, if it evolved in the way that many athiests would have us believed, is engineered for survival. Not for truth seeking. So if I accept the athiest world view, I have no reason to believe that anything I believe or they believe is true. It is just what evolution thinks is best for my brain.

 

Only part of the brain is designed in the way that atheists mention according to you. It is the limbic system, and it is the most primal part of the brain that tells you to move your hand away from a hot object or to get food when you're hungry. Which essentially means survival. However in the past couple millennia, humans have developed their brain more than most animals and it's called the frontal cortex where the higher thinking and "truth seeking" occurs. I wouldn't be typing this or even have a computer without either systems of my brain.

 

I'm not going to argue abortion, that's solely opinionated and it's near impossible to change someones views. Though I'm pro-choice. I think that the women carrying the baby should be able to choose.

 

Drugs I believe should be legal for economical gain and because it's kind of stress relieving to get high just once in a while, and it would be nice to be able to do that without it being illegal.

 

Gay marriage I'm for because I think it's unfair. After all, everyone is created equally (at least that's what the American Constitution says). So to deny gays marriage rights is like denying black people the right to go to the same school as white people. Which also did happen in America, and is fixed.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Only part of the brain is designed in the way that atheists mention according to you. It is the limbic system, and it is the most primal part of the brain that tells you to move your hand away from a hot object or to get food when you're hungry. Which essentially means survival. However in the past couple millennia, humans have developed their brain more than most animals and it's called the frontal cortex where the higher thinking and "truth seeking" occurs. I wouldn't be typing this or even have a computer without either systems of my brain.

 

Yes, but the development of any part of the brain is undirected. Its just atoms, moving about. We see it as ordered, but that's because of the lens we're looking through. From an athiestic POV, there is no reason to think of anything we see or do as having any more order than a random string of explosions.