>> ^Shepppard
1) I don't think i've ever been called crotchface before.
2) I never said I disagree with the statement, and I'm not sure where you pulled that out of..
3) The sentence structure doesn't make sense. It can be about as effective as the first one, because the first one set the bar and the second is unable to pass it, Therefore stating "The first one didn't work, and neither did/will this one."
If it was as ineffective as the anti-drug commercials, that would be correct, because you're directly stating how ineffective the object was in comparison to something else.
Therefore stating "They both didn't work"
"About as ineffective as" means "the first one didn't work, but this one is doing better then it" which in this context, doesn't make sense, because the original intended statement meant that they are both ineffective.


Hey, Sheppard, you're wrong. Just shut up already. If you're describing something as being roughly as effective as something that has a low degree of effectiveness, that = low degree of effectiveness. And "about" is not equivalent to "under" or "over" like you are assuming, an approximation doesn't specify anything other than its close. There is no bar being set here.

^
Both are technically ambiguous to the same degree.
However, "About as effective" is more clever. The audience is supposed to infer that you think anti-drug commercials are ineffective without you saying "they're ineffective". It's an unstated premise, nudge nudge wink wink.

Take, for example, "as boring as watching paint dry." Hmm. A plain statement, no layers or subtlety. Not as clever as "about as much fun as watching paint dry." It's up to you, though.

>> ^rgroom1:
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^rottenseed:
Upvote for highspeed bullet-through-object video. As far as gun control, these commercials are about as effective as anti-drug commercials.

Clearly those anti-drug commercials aren't working on you, so I fixed your statement.
Now go find some munchies or something.

either way is correct, crotchface.
"about as ineffective" - very ineffective.
"about as effective" - not very effective at all.
If you disagree, then say it.
Regardless, this doesn't quell my bloodlust for beer bottles and washing machines.


1) I don't think i've ever been called crotchface before.
2) I never said I disagree with the statement, and I'm not sure where you pulled that out of..
3) The sentence structure doesn't make sense. It can be about as effective as the first one, because the first one set the bar and the second is unable to pass it, Therefore stating "The first one didn't work, and neither did/will this one."

If it was as ineffective as the anti-drug commercials, that would be correct, because you're directly stating how ineffective the object was in comparison to something else.
Therefore stating "They both didn't work"

"About as ineffective as" means "the first one didn't work, but this one is doing better then it" which in this context, doesn't make sense, because the original intended statement meant that they are both ineffective.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^rottenseed:
Upvote for highspeed bullet-through-object video. As far as gun control, these commercials are about as effective as anti-drug commercials.

Clearly those anti-drug commercials aren't working on you, so I fixed your statement.
Now go find some munchies or something.


either way is correct, crotchface.
"about as ineffective" - very ineffective.
"about as effective" - not very effective at all.
If you disagree, then say it.
Regardless, this doesn't quell my bloodlust for beer bottles and washing machines.

>> ^rottenseed:
Upvote for highspeed bullet-through-object video. As far as gun control, these commercials are about as effective as anti-drug commercials.


Clearly those anti-drug commercials aren't working on you, so I fixed your statement.

Now go find some munchies or something.

Upvote for highspeed bullet-through-object video. As far as gun control, these commercials are about as ineffective as anti-drug commercials.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video DA Anti-Drug Convention (Fear and Loathing Style). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

A side note on the Golden Rule you mentioned: It has its origins in Matthew 7:12 which refers back to the 6th through the 10th commandments given by Moses in the Pentateuch. The Golden Rule is merely a summary of the way we ought to interact with fellow man. (It does not address how we ought to act within our own minds or with our Creator.) Rather than 'some' morals deriving from the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule is derived from 'some' morals.

You're correct that Marijuana use doesn't directly injure anyone else (though everything indirectly affects others around us). Just like smoking cigarettes or over-eating. Yet, Marijuana use harms the user far less than either of those two. But one truly has to understand what the very purpose of his existence is in order to understand that Marijuana use is contrary to those purposes.

The big problem I have with this whole "this should be illegal, this shouldn't be illegal" stuff is that I do not see a disparity between the moral code and legal/lawful code. If something can be demonstrated to be immoral using Foundational Law, it is irrelevant if the current governmental powers recognize it as such, in determining it's immorality. The question then is, in structuring our governments to abide by and recognize Foundational Law, should those governments have corporeal punishments for violations of that Law. Each law is different, and carries different punishments. For the case of Marijuana use, I would argue that there is no punishment at all that can be carried out by what most people call the US GOVERNMENT that would be fitting to the 'crime' so committed. That is to say, in common parlance, MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. And I think that NO ONE should smoke it! If (and when) they do, they have their own reward and punishment in the same instant and they will be ostracized by their own families to the extent of their misbehavior.

I think cigarettes are just fine. Crudely speaking, they kill those stupid enough to use them. The crime isn't in the cigarette. The crime is in the heart and mind of the user. Just as are ALL crimes. Controlling materials is not going to change the heart and minds of men. That requires spiritual powers. To answer you succinctly: CIGARETTES SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.

Once again, drugs ARE morally wrong, but that does not mean the US GOVERNMENT should carry out the punishments for the violations. The US GOVERNMENT and it's subsidiary STATES are HORRIBLE at correcting the mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral errors in the hearts and minds of men. Last time I checked, the US GOVERNMENT doesn't even try.

In reply to this comment by brain:
The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

Blanky

We don't need to put words in your mouth when two of the five in the poll are libertarians.

And besides, your guy is a Republican and ran for POTUS as a Republican. Barr was a Republican until 2006, when he saw his brand crushed into a zillion ugly pieces. This also happens to coincide with when he saw the light of many other "freedoms" being stolen from us, most of which he was a fervent supporter of the destruction.

So please, out of this list here, other than the Dems, they are Republicans, so why wouldn't we, in this context, label those people as such?

Bring up sound money policy as much as you want. I do not and have never agreed with Obama or any Dems fiscal positions, nor do I agree with the scorched earth policies of Barr and Paul. I think the stimulus package is 50% bullshit, and 50% good. Paul and Barr (and Schiff) thinks it's 100% shit, but they do nothing in the way of telling us what they would do, other than nothing, which is nice if you're well-off, but horrible if you're the father of a few kids who just lost his job and all of their health insurance.

I guess that's why anyone who opposes the glibs are unabashed defenders of Obama


*meh



Here's what your awesome Libertarian is responsible for, and tell me again about how much he loves "freedom":

Defense of Marriage Act (authored and sponsored)
War On Drugs
Federal Prohibition of Medical Marijuana
Blocked legalization of medical marijuana in DC, of which passed by 69%
Patriot Act
For the Iraq Resolution
Proposed banning the practice of Wicca in the military
Clinton impeachment


So, anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti religious freedom, pro-war, anti-clinton, anti-medical marijuana.

OHHH!!! But now he's sowwwy for all that. Yeah, vote for the most draconian laws to happen during my lifetime, jam the war on drugs down our throats with your buddy Newt, and invade Iraq over a pack of lies... and then tell everyone you're sorry and we'll all just forget.


uggh

The U.S. judicial system is broken. The U.S.A. incarcerates more people than any nation per capita, surpassing China and The Soviet Union. The onset of all anti-drug laws in this country stem from racism and profit; i.e opium in California and marijuana in the deep South.
Nixon made drugs Public Enemy #1 in an effort to hoodwink the population from focusing on Vietnam. The 80s saw a drastic increase in resources to combat a ghost problem. Minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws ushered in the prison-industrial complex nation we live in today. Fortunately, minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws are unraveling.
The waste of money to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders is staggering and shameful. Something must be done hastily.

Actually it's more like the modern terrorists are inspired by the legend of the Assassins.

"First published sixty years ago, Alamut is a literary classic by Slovenian writer Vladimir Bartol, a deftly researched and presented historical novel about one of the world’s first political terrorists, 11th century Ismaili leader Hasan ibn Sabbah, whose machinations with drugs and carnal pleasures deceived his followers into believing that he would deliver them to a paradise in the afterlife, so that they would destroy themselves in suicide missions for him."

BZZZT - fail to the book reviewer for equating research potentially with the non-fiction side anyway - they were very much anti-drug. These were professional killers and the whole idea of drugs to brain-wash people is, at best, a way to wash away the power of ideology in encouraging people to follow their leader's call to wipe out their enemies. See http://www.amazon.ca/Secret-History-Assassination-Paymasters-Revealed/dp/1845297660 to refer to my source on that.

Is this an anti-drug PSA or an anti-religion PSA?

>> ^nibiyabi:
WTF was that word salad coming out of the commentator at the end?!


Priceless quote material.

Am not at all surprised that Pinky hasn't replied to anyone in this thread.

People who comment with vigorous views online don't usually have radical shifts of opinions given a reasoned opposition. I would think that we are all lost souls to her. To forgone to reach. Representative of a society gone astray.

However there are countless places online where mutual support can be found, if your are pro or anti pornography, pro or anti drugs, pro or anti BSDM, pro or anti bestiality.

It's the nature of the internet. However these groups don't usually engage in cross dialog to resolve things, mostly because once you have a certain view and standpoint, people don't change that, mostly because our views psychologically feed back into how we see ourselves. It takes alot of strength to reexamine those.